Tweet
Freeholders A and B, each own half a plot of land. 'A' grants a lease of his land to 'B' for 150 years at a peppercorn and 'B' underlets the whole plot to 'C' for 146 years for use as a car park at a rent of 10% of the income generated from parking.
What happens at the end of 'C's lease?
What is the procedure for 'C' to be obtain a new term?
Does he serve a S.26 notice on 'B' who only has 4 years remaining on the head lease and is not in occupation?
And/or does he serve it on both 'A' and 'B'?
Can 'A' grant 'C' a long term lease of his half of the plot commencing on expiry of the head lease and, if so, how does 'C' secure his position during that 4 year period?
Assuming that the multi-storey structure reverts to the lessor(s), if 'A' and 'B' were happy for 'C' to have a new long term lease, I assume that the rent to which they would be entitled would include the benefit of the multi-car park structure and that they would have to agree an apportionment between them, but what happens if say 'B' doesn't want to co-operate? Can he be forced to do so through the Court? Could he validly refuse on the grounds that he wanted to use the land himself, which wouldn't be feasible as the building would be a contiguous structure, not conveniently designed to be split and operated as 2 individual car parks?
Could 'B' insist on demolishing that part of the structure which was on his land?
What happens at the end of 'C's lease?
What is the procedure for 'C' to be obtain a new term?
Does he serve a S.26 notice on 'B' who only has 4 years remaining on the head lease and is not in occupation?
And/or does he serve it on both 'A' and 'B'?
Can 'A' grant 'C' a long term lease of his half of the plot commencing on expiry of the head lease and, if so, how does 'C' secure his position during that 4 year period?
Assuming that the multi-storey structure reverts to the lessor(s), if 'A' and 'B' were happy for 'C' to have a new long term lease, I assume that the rent to which they would be entitled would include the benefit of the multi-car park structure and that they would have to agree an apportionment between them, but what happens if say 'B' doesn't want to co-operate? Can he be forced to do so through the Court? Could he validly refuse on the grounds that he wanted to use the land himself, which wouldn't be feasible as the building would be a contiguous structure, not conveniently designed to be split and operated as 2 individual car parks?
Could 'B' insist on demolishing that part of the structure which was on his land?
Comment