LeaseLicense Essay FINAL

A lease is a property right associated with real estate that establishes a

landlord-tenant connection. This privilege may not taken away at will. A license,
on the other hand, is a personal right that cannot be altered or cancelled at will,
does not establish a landlord-tenant relationship, and does not require the
provision of any amenities. Considering the advantages of licence agreements, the
landlord used to make them (without the tenants' awareness), which resulted in
unfairness. Hence, the courts in Street v. Mountford established three requirements
that, if satisfied, would allow the rights to be a lease regardless of what the
contract actually indicated.
In the instance of Street v. Mountford, the giving of exclusive possession was the
first restriction imposed. (EP). This is the control over a property that only the
renter or the landlord may enter with their consent. The courts in this case will
be disinterested in the fake systems and instead focus on the content rather than
the form. In this situation, the courts' restriction of the right of access did not
undermine EP but rather strengthened it. Additionally, if the owner can demonstrate
that he could make use of the keys to access the property without the renters'
permission regardless of time and at their discretion, EP is not nullified by the
retention of the keys. (Aslan v Murphy). The courts in Street v. Mountford,
nonetheless will disregard the shams and search for "the true bargain" among the
parties. Typically, the landlords assert that their agreement is a licence rather
than a lease. On the other hand, if the courts believe that this is not the actual
situation involving the parties, they will disregard these types of restrictions.
Furthermore, the term must start at a specific moment and last for a specific
amount of time. After multiple instances endeavored to loosen the reliability of
the term rule's requirements, the House of Lords lately reaffirmed an exact
understanding of the rule in the case of Prudential Assurance v. London Residuary
Body. Since it serves no practical use, this principle is challenged. But if it's a
business lease and the parties meant for it to be legally binding, the commencement
date is not enough to render the lease null and void. (Liverpool CC v Walton
Group). However, the term is certain and the law will view this as a periodic
tenancy if the contract has no term but states that the tenant may remain for as
long as he is paying the rent.
In the third place, while the tenant's obligation to pay rent is a requirement of
every lease (Ashburn Anstalt v. Arnold), the rent charge is not a vital part of a
lease. Periodic tenancies last for the same length of time as the quantifiable rent
period. Although if the lease is issued through a contract rather than a deed, it
will be complicated to prove the lease's objective without rent and the contract is
unlikely to be valid for lack of consideration.
However, pursuant to Section 1(6) of the Law of Property Act of 1925, the legal
title to land may only be co-owned by joint tenants, and additionally, in order for
a lease to be valid, the parties must fulfill the four requirements of having
possession, time, interest, and title, that are determined by the courts based on
content rather than form. (Antonaides v Villicus). In addition, the courts
developed the idea of a non-proprietary lease in the case of Brutons, that
establishes a relationship between a landlord and a tenant even though it has
nothing to do with real estate. It may also be given in cases where the landlord is
also a licensee. Additionally, although the Bruton tenancy was awarded in the
proceeding of Kay v. London Borough Council of Lambeth, Green, it was determined
that this type of tenancy is non-proprietary and only among those involved and is
not legally binding a third party or the fee simple holder.
As a result, it is evident from the previously mentioned factors that the word
lease is ambiguous, and as a result, the courts established the Bruton concept,
according to which a tenancy under this type is solely within the parties, non-
proprietary, and unenforceable by a third party.