Once a lease
agreement is in place in respect of premises, obligations and duties arise for
which both the landlord and tenant are responsible. These obligations and
duties are normally set out in a written lease agreement but where these have
not been recorded in writing, common law practice would apply[1].
Originally, a lease agreement is a contract for the occupation of land and it
was only is the sixtieth century that leases were recognized as “interest in
land’ so that the right and duties of the parties were no longer merely
contractual, but become glued to the land. However, much of the law of leases
still contract law, with statutory additions controlling residential, business
and agricultural tendencies[2].
In this question, focus is directed to a discussion as to whether an agreement
for a lease is as good as a lease. In this case thus, we will start with
explanation on the meaning of lease and lease agreement (agreement for a
lease), then essentials for a lease will be displayed in a nutshell, in the
main body; we will see circumstances where agreement for a lease is as good as
a lease and vice versa, then conclusion will be the ultimatum.
2.0. MEANING OF TERMS
2.1.
LEASE
Lease is
defined under Section 2 of the Land Act[3]
to mean, “A lease or sub lease, whether registered or unregistered of a right
of occupancy and includes a short term lease and agreement to lease.”
In other words, a lease
is a form of contract. To be valid, a lease
must meet essentially the same requirements as any other contract.
2.1.
LEASE AGREEMENT
The lease
agreement is the agreement between landlord and tenant which involves certain
obligations by both parties, the lease generally provides for the tenant from
disturbance by the landlord or any other tenant. The landlord usually pays any
taxes, assessments and interest on mortgages on the property. In most estates,
landlord must comply with a warrant of habitability that requires them to
maintain decent, safe and sanitary dwellings. If the landlord fails to comply,
tenants may seek rent abetments that reflect the diminished value of the
premises. For their part, tenants must use the premises only as specified on
the lease, exercise reasonable care of the owner’s property and pay rent as
agreed in the contract. The lease provides for the amount of money to be paid[4].
3.0.
ESSENTIALS OF A VALID LEASE
Normally a lease
must meet essentially the same requirements as any other contract: these
include offer and acceptance. The parties must reach a
mutual agreement on all the terms of the contract. Consideration;
the lease
must be supported by valid consideration.
Rent;
is the normal consideration given for the right to occupy the leased
premises. However, the payment of Rent
is not essential as long as consideration
was granted in creating the lease itself, sometimes, for instance, this consideration
is labor performed on the property. Because a lease
is a contract, it is not subject to subsequent changes in the Rent
or other terms unless these changes are in writing and executed in the same
manner as the original lease. Capacity to contract the parties must
have the legal capacity to contract. Legal objectives the objectives of the lease
must be legal.[5]
4.0. MAIN BODY
·
WHERE
AGREEMENT FOR A LEASE IS AS GOOD AS A LEASE
In adhering to
this, it is important to note that an agreement for lease has equitable
interest while a legal lease has a legal interest. These was shown in the case
of WALSH V. LONSDALE [6]
where there was an equitable 7 years lease of a mill. Since the tenant had
moved in and was paid a yearly rent, this was also an implied legal periodic
yearly tenancy. The Judicature Act of 1873 and 1975, Supreme Court act 1981
ruled that,
“In
equity specific performance may be granted of an imperfect lease which is
treated as a contract. Once it has been granted the parties are in the position
of having a lease by deed. Before it is granted but when the parties are entitled
to ask for it, ‘equity looks on that as done which ought to be done was legal
lease.”
This maxim is
reflected in the often cited statement that, “an agreement for a lease is as good as a legal lease”[7]
Therefore, where
with rule of equity and with common law completed on the some matter the
equitable rules should prevail. The landlord of mill, was therefore able to
enforce the rent in advance term in the equitable 7 years lease against the
tenant. In general an equitable lease can be converted into legal lease through
the equitable remedy of specific performance but it should be remembered that
while the behavior of the plaintiff is not relevant if she is seeking a legal
remedy equitable remedies are discretionary and unlikely to be available if she
has believed badly and does not come equity with clean hands
Further more, it
is vital to note that there are two types of lease which are equitable lease and legal lease. A legal lease is a lease
for any period greater than three years. It can only be created by deed; which
is an instrument for right of land occupation. No deed is required at law for a
lease taking effect in possession for a term not exceeding three years.
The term
possession includes receipt of rent and profits from a sub tenancy.[8]
On the other hand, when we talk of equitable
lease; in this case if a lease is void at law, it may still be valid in
equity provided it is for valuable consideration and is evidenced by an act of part
performance. Equity treats an unenforceable legal lease as contract to create a
lease and may grant specific performance of its terms. What is required is a
written evidences of a contract, not necessary a complete written contract. The
evidence must extend to at least parties, premises, duration of the lease, rent
or other considerations and date of commencement together with every other
material term. Evidence need not to be in any particular form and joinder of
documents is possible.
Also, if a
contract is unenforceable the equitable doctrine of part performance may still
apply. It should be established that, the person seeking to enforce the
contract has carried out some act which on the balance of probabilities was
carried out because the contract was in existence. In STEADMAN vs. STEADMAN[9]
the test of unequivocal referability was rejected in favor of the balance
of probabilities test.
On the other
hand taking possession of property is a good act of part performance but
remaining in possession on expiry of a lease is not. It was originally held in CHAPRIONIERE vs. LAMBERT[10]
that payment of money can not amount to part performance.
Nonetheless,
equity treats an imperfect or unenforceable legal lease as a contract to which
equity may grant specific performance, an agreement for a lease is similarly
treated so that the remedy may equally be available. Before an agreement can be
enforced final and complete, agreement must have been reached. This means the
parties are beyond the stage of negotiation. An agreement subject to contract
is not enforceable, though a provisional agreement until a full legalized
agreement is signed as binding.[11]
Not only that,
but also in equity specific performance be granted of an imperfect which is
treated as a contract. Once it has been granted the parties are in the position
of lease by deed. Before it is granted but when the parties are entitled to ask
for it, “equity looks on that as done
which ought to be done”, and all terms of the agreement are enforceable as
if it was a legal lease. Thus, the maxim often cited statement that an agreement for a lease is as good as a
lease.[12]
To summarize
on that, the contention that “an agreement for a lease is as good as a lease”
is to the effect that, where a person who has not yet attained a legal lease
and is faced with inconveniences in the course of landlord and tenant
relationship, he can be able to seek remedies in court. And the court in this
case invokes the Doctrine of Equity to redress that. But it is essential that,
the one alleging must come with clean hands.
·
WHERE
AGREEMENT FOR A LEASE IS NOT AS GOOD AS A LEASE.
However, an
agreement for lease is not good as legal lease for the following
circumstances:-
Firstly, a
contract is dependent on specific performance which is a discretionary remedy
and may not be granted if, if, for instance a tenant is in breach of obligation
as shown in the case of COSTWORTH vs. JONSON[13].
Secondly, a legal lease creates an estate enforceable against all third
parties, whereas a contract is not enforceable against certain purchasers of a
legal estate. An agreement is an estate contract, which, if created after 1925,
is registrable as a land charge. If is not registered it is void against a
purchaser of a legal estate for money or money’s worth.
Thirdly, the
burdens of certain covenants do not pass on an assignment of an agreement for
lease.
Fourthly, a
contract is not “conveyance” for the purpose Land Provision Act of 1925, S. 62.
Also, the
holder of an agreement can never claim to be bonafide purchaser for value of a
legal estate with no notice of an equitable interest.[14]
5.0. CONCLUSION
Therefore, it
is now settled in our minds that, an agreement for a lease is also not as good
as legal lease, bearing in mind the above points. Here it is of paramount
importance to remember that, under strict application of the law, there is not
equitable lease as enforceable per se. That is to say, just like the way it is
in relationship between contracts and other agreement; that, all contracts are
agreements, but not all agreements are contracts. So in our case is suffices to
say that, all leases embody agreement for a lease, but not all agreements for
leases are leases. However, in order to set a mechanism so that equitable
leases may have legal redress, the courts of law accept equitable leases that
basically are agreements to leases or imperfect leases, with the caution that,
whoever comes to equity, must come with clean hands.
[1] http://www.answers.com
23/04/2009
[2] Green, K and Cursley J. Land law p.52
[3] Cap 113, R.E 2002
[4] En.wikipedia.org/wiki/lease_44k_
24/04/2009
[5] http://www.wiki.answers.org. 23/04/2009
[6] (1882) 21CHD 9d
[7] Howarth, W, Land Law in
Nutshells, p. 26
[8] William Howorth (1987), Land Law in a nutshell, p. 25
[9] (1976) AC 536
[10] (1917)
[11] William Howorth (1987), Land Law in a nutshell, p. 25
[12] Ibid, at p 26
[13] (1886), p.26
[14] (1987) William Howarth, p 26
0 Comments
PLACE YOUR COMMENT HERE
WARNING: DO NOT USE ABUSIVE LANGUAGE BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST THE LAW.
THE COMMENTS OF OUR READERS IS NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY.