The historic statutory provisions for double value and double rent have stood the test of time, such that if a commercial tenant remains in a property beyond the period upon which the contractual tenancy has been brought to an end, they will potentially be liable to penalty.
Below we look at the provisions of both the Landlord and Tenant Act 1730 and the Distress for Rent Act 1737, and how these 18th century statutes continue to provide a financial remedy after almost three centuries.
What is double value?
By virtue of section 1 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1730, a landlord is entitled to claim against his tenant double the annual value of the premises during the period of holding over in circumstances where the landlord has demanded possession in writing but the tenant unlawfully remains in occupation.
Indeed, section 1 provides that should the tenant “…wilfully hold over any Lands, Tenements or Hereditaments, after the Determination of such Term or Terms, and after Demand made, and Notice in Writing given, for delivering the Possession thereof, by his or their Landlords or Lessors” the landlord is entitled to charge the tenant “at the Rate of double the yearly Value of the Lands” for the time that the tenant unlawfully remains in the premises.
As such, for these provisions to apply, the landlord must have served a valid notice to quit for the tenant to deliver up possession, and the tenant must remain in occupation as a trespasser. In other words, the tenant must be wilfully holding over, not merely in occupation by mistake or otherwise.
The 1730 Act also only applies to tenancies that run from year to year, as well as to fixed term tenancies. The Act does not apply to weekly tenancies and, in some cases, monthly or quarterly tenancies.
What is double rent?
The principle of double rent, as provided for by section 18 of the Distress for Rent Act 1737, is not too dissimilar to that of double value in that this permits a landlord to demand twice the amount of rent from the tenant for the period of holding over.
Although the circumstances in which each Act applies slightly differ, both are concerned with situations where the tenant remains in occupation as a trespasser beyond the end of the term of the lease.
Section 18 provides that should the tenant “…give notice of his, her, or their intention to quit the premises by him, her, or them holden, at a time mentioned in such notice, and shall not accordingly deliver up the possession thereof at the time in such notice contained” then the tenant will be liable to pay the landlord “…double the rent or sum which he, she, or they should otherwise have paid”.
As such, for these provisions to apply, the tenant must have given notice to vacate the premises, rather than the landlord serving notice for the tenant to deliver up possession, although in both cases the tenant must be wilfully holding over and thereby remaining in occupation as a trespasser.
Indeed, for section 18 to apply, the landlord must treat the former tenant as a trespasser in unlawful occupation. As such, the landlord must not do or say anything that would treat the lease as continuing, such as accepting the previously agreed rent. To do so would be to waive the right to claim double rent.
Legal disclaimer
The matters contained herein are intended to be for general information purposes only. This blog does not constitute legal advice, nor is it a complete or authoritative statement of the law and should not be treated as such.
Whilst every effort is made to ensure that the information is correct, no warranty, express or implied, is given as to its accuracy and no liability is accepted for any error or omission. Before acting on any of the information contained herein, expert legal advice should be sought.
