ESSSSAY LEASE LICENSE ESSAY FINAL PROPERTY HASBA

To begin with the two primary legally permissible methods through which someone is
capable of renting out any land or property are known as Lease and license. The
distinction between the a lease and a license shall be noted, given that a lease is
regarded a proprietary right, whilst a licence happens to be a personal right. The
tenant enjoys personal property rights against the owner under the terms of the
lease, which is an agreement involving the landlord and the tenant. It should be
highlighted that while the agreement is exclusively contractual, the rights of
the authorized tenant are not going to be enforced upon the other individuals. As
we move towards the leaseholder, it is essential to take into account the tenant
has both legally binding ((contractual) and propriety rights over the owner of the
property.

Whenever a landowner rents his property, he or she automatically turns into a

landlord and the person who rents it becomes a tenant of the property. A lease is a
propriety right, and when it is granted once, the proprietor can not cancel it.
When giving a tenant a lease, it is crucial to always keep consider that the
landlord has a duty to provide them with some daily routine basic necessities such
as (hot water etc) after the lease has been granted. Moreover, if an agreement to
lease has been established among a tenant and a landlord, the lease is going to be
regarded as a private privilege according to the principles above. It is
additionally essential to note that the landlord has the authority to cancel the
lease at any given time, and there is no connection that exists between the
landlord and the tenant. The most surprising aspect for the person who holds the
licence is the fact that the owner is not liable for handing out any basic
amenities, as outlined above.

With regard to licences, it has been pointed out that the owner of the property
always encourages license whereas the tenant generally intends to obtain a lease.
Since previously stated, if a landlord issues a license to a tenant, the owner has
no obligations to the tenant and is further free to terminate the license any time
he desires, which is completely in opposition to the tenant's interests. The lease
holder is secure, nevertheless, because the property owner is bound by a number of
fundamental obligations concerning the person who is renting and cannot withdraw
the agreement of lease without the tenant's consent at any period of time.

Proceeding on to the main licence issue that tenants frequently encountered. The
main issue concerning the licence entailed the fact that anytime the landlord
attempted to cancel it, the tenants had just one choice of going to the court and
make an appeal, using an arbitrary standard to argue that the owner do not possess
the right to do so in absence of their consent. However, since the courts adopted
to interpret and abide through the contractual arrangement that was signed when the
licence was being granted, the ruling usually works against the tenant. In keeping
with this, being apparent that the courts eventually adopted the more objective
method after the subjective approach began to benefit the tenant. According to the
reasoning from the courts in Clearfield, anytime there is a question of cancelling
the licence, the judges would have to decide if it is a lease or a licence. The
legal system further declared that the lease or licence cannot be decided as
per the terms of the contract. The three criteria that are required to be achieved
for a licence to be considered as a lease were outlined upon by the legal system as
part of the procedure by which the judge is expected to start evaluating whether it
is a lease or a licence. Initial exemption was established in Street v. Mountford,
in which it was stated that the owner must provide the tenant a sole possession
right, which entails the fact that the tenant must have complete control over the
property. This entitlement must be noted truthfully, irrespective of whether the
contract specifies that the privilege should be granted or not. The observation of
exclusive possession is not overruled by constrained rights of entrance, on the
other hand, only strengthens it. The provision of services together with the
lodging, nevertheless, it is a derogation and is taken into account without regard
to whether the sole ownership prevails.

Proceeding on to the second point—that there have to be a time limitations means

that the maximum amount duration during which the licence is granted must be
demonstrated. Authorities have also ruled that this time limit must be contained in
the agreement itself, however this later came out to be pointless. Nevertheless, if
the timing appears unclear and the licence is granted exclusively as a result, the
licence holders receive treatment unfairly. As a result of the clarity provided by
the courts (Beresward case), the judges decided to change it into the maximum
duration possible within the LPA 1925, that is a lease of 90 years. The final
condition was that the property owner be required to charge rent, however section
205 of the LPA 1925 states that despite lacking rent, a lease is still established.
However, a modification was made in this case, requiring that the contract be made
through a deed since a deed does not need consideration.

Soon after meeting the entire criteria, a concept emerged in the matter of Bruton,
where a lease holder attempted to grant a licence to a third party in spite of the
fact the individual was also the owner of the property rights, thereby making it
illegal for him to lend a licence to anyone. However, the courts stepped in and
decided that Bruton could grant a licence without regard to whether he held a
lease. Because the lease and licence principles were merged upon this, the Bruton
theory created ambiguity and confused everyone.