A very strong case can be made for the fact that the various Landlord and Tenant Act are weighted against landlords.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 provides security of tenure for those who are business tenants. This means that if a business tenant has been in occupation of premises for a certain period, he/she/it cannot be evicted by the tenant unless a complicated procedure is followed. This involves the service of various notices, which can be opposed by the tenant. Furthermore, the tenant can successfully obtain a new lease even if the landlord does not wish for the tenant to be in occupation. This Landlord and Tenant Act highlights the weak position landlord’s. This is furthered by the fact the reasons a landlord can evict a tenant are very limited.
However, the reliance on this Landlord and Tenant Act as an example to support the contention that Landlord and Tenant Act is weighted against landord’s is overstated. This is highlighted by the simple fact that this Landlord and Tenant Act can be excluded by agreement between the parties.
Despite the above, there are a number of other examples of Landlord and Tenant Acts which serve to highlight that the Landlord and Tenant Act is weighted against landlords. For example, Landlord and Tenant Act constrains a landlord’s right to refuse consent when it is required by a provision of a lease. Furthermore, Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a number of onerous obligations on a landlord.
If the example of an assured shorthold tenancy is used, however, this highlights there is some favour for landlords. After the expiration of a 6 month period, a landlord can give two months notice stating that possession is required. The tenant can then be removed. There is no reason required for possession. This latter feature highlights there is an unconstrained power, in relation to some leases at lease, for the landlord to manage the property as his own.