Abstract
If a covenant for quiet enjoyment of the property is not expressly given in the lease, then one will be implied. The express covenant is usually qualified to extend to the unlawful acts of the landlord, or the lawful acts of anyone claiming through him. The implied covenant is similarly qualified. It will not therefore apply to an interruption in enjoyment by anyone with a superior title to the landlord, such as a headlessor as regards the lease of a subtenant as in Celsteel Ltd. v. Altan House Holdings Ltd. (No.2) (1986)1, unless the wording of an express covenant is made to cover a head lessor specifically, as it was held to do in Queensway Marketing Ltd. v. Associated Restaurants Ltd. (1984).2
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1989 Margaret Wilkie and Godfrey Cole
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wilkie, M., Cole, G. (1989). Obligations Implied on Behalf of the Landlord. In: Landlord and Tenant Law. Macmillan Professional Masters. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-20104-4_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-20104-4_5
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-333-47197-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-20104-4
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)