2. The original tenancy in this case was for a period of two years. Querist was therefore able, from 6 October 1985, to rent the premises safely for an additional nine months, without the tenant obtaining a renewal fee. According to Gatien`s precedent, a janitor`s contract could be concluded before the expiry of this period, on the basis of which Mr. Doe would continue to work for one week at the end of this nine-month period, without rent. As a janitor, Mr. Doe would not be a tenant and would maintain the premises for this period of fiduciary purposes. During this one-week period, a new lease agreement for a period of two years and nine months would be agreed and executed between the parties. If the facts of the Gatien case were strictly respected, Mr.
Doe would set up a business and that company would take over the new lease. However, the creation of a company cannot be essential to regulation. The Supreme Court`s arguments in Gatien suggest that the same exercise could happen again at the end of a new two-year, nine-month lease period. 1. The decision in Gatien Motor Company was important in that, for the first time, judicial authorization was granted for a device likely to circumvent the provisions of the Landlords and Tenants Act of 1931, which grants the right of renewal to a person employed in a commercial building for a period of more than three years. While the provisions of the Landlords and Tenants Act 1980 (Amendment Act) may assume that the corresponding provisions of the 1931 Act have not been significantly amended, the device permitted in this case remains available to landlords and tenants. If this were the case here, Querist could retain Mr. Doe as a tenant without being in a situation where he would have the right to renew a long-term lease. Lawyers often face the difficulty of advising a landlord who wishes to extend or extend a short-term tenancy to an expiring tenant.
One of the most common devices is to allow the tenant to occupy the premises as a janitor during a breach between the expiring lease and the new lease. The impact of the 1980 Landlord and Tenant Act on the law, as found by the Supreme Court in the Gatien Motor Company case, was not entirely clear. This wording is different from the equivalent provision in section 19 of the 1931 Act. There was the granting of rights to premises ”used by the tenant for the time being, in whole or in part, to carry out a commercial activity.” ”For the three years that ended on that date, the tenant was uninterrupted in the occupation of the person who was a tenant just prior to that period, or of his predecessors in title and good faith, which were used in whole or in part for the exercise of a business.” It seems to me that there is a difference between the two provisions. Section 19 of the 1931 Act appears to require that a person in the profession be a tenant throughout the qualification period. However, at a glance, Section 13 of the 1980 Act simply appears to require that the person in the tenant occupation be ”just before” when they claim to be entitled to a new lease. The new wording may therefore have the effect of nullulation the effect of the Gatien Motor Company case and allow a tenant (in the use of a tenancy agreement granted for a period after the occupation of the week of a janitor`s contract) to assert that he is entitled to rights at the end of his new lease, since he was immediately before the termination or termination of the same tenant and that he exercised an uninterrupted professional activity Period. more than three years.