Non derogation from grant which requires that the landlord does not and must not use or permit to be used the adjoining or neighbouring premises of which he is the proprietor in such a way as to adversely affect the tenants use of the leased out premises.  That requirement is specifically there to ensure that the landlord does not defeat ones declared intentions as to why one requires to take up the premises in the first place and the court in Birmingham Dudley and District Banking Company V. Ross (1888) 38 Ch. D 295 summed up the essence of this obligation as follows
“A granter having given a thing with one hand is not allowed to take away the means of enjoying it with the other hand.”  What this boils down to is that if one has leased out premises for rent, to defeat ones purpose and that of ones family from living in a dignified neighbourhood, the landlord should not allow brothel services for example if the premises are for residential purposes.  One cannot run a disco or pub just next to the residential as this would amount to derogating from the grant.  The tenant it is assumed will have declared the user to the landlord and the landlord is then bound to the right of non-derogation from the grant.

The premises as leased out must be fit for habitation that the tenant seeks to use the premises.  Subject to Cap 300 and subject to the provisions of Cap 293 Rent Restriction Act it is an implied term in all leasehold transactions that where a dwelling house is let out especially if it is furnished there is an implied undertaking that the same is fit for habitation at the commencement of that particular arrangement.  This is only found in the RLA and there is no equivalent in the ITPA; Leases that involve premises that are let out furnished are subject to this requirement.

Implied right of a tenant that the landlord will disclose material defects in the premises which is an ITPA feature.  The Landlord under ITPA is under an obligation to disclose all defects in his knowledge and of which the tenant is not aware but ought to be informed of and due regard must be had to the tenant’s declared purpose for which he intends to take up the premises.  It is an implied right for the landlord to carry out repairs Section 53 of the RLA requires that where only a part of the premises is leased out the landlord must keep the roof, common passages and common installations in a good state of repair.  This is so fundamental that a breach thereof is enough ground for the tenant to repudiate the leasehold arrangement all together besides being in a position to institute legal proceedings for recovery of damages, there is no similar provision in the ITPA and it remains an RLA phenomenon.

Implied rights of the landlord that translates into tenants obligations
obligation to pay rent – a tenant must pay rent as a general principle Section 54(a) of the RLA and the duty to pay rent subsists for some time even in situations where an event or catastrophe has occurred which has the effect of rendering the premises unfit for use for the purpose to which it was leased out.  Only if there is failure of the landlord to restore the premises within the periods stipulated by law will the duty to pay rent cease.  This is principally due to the fact that a leasehold arrangement creates an estate in land that supersedes simple contracts so that the rights and interests created are not bound to be defeated by certain contractual flaws that may be found in simple contracts as opposed to a lease.  The estate is a much more substantive right which is not subject to being defeated merely by some of these incidents.  It remains vested in the tenant and therefore the obligation to pay rent continues even in such situations except when there is failure to make good on the damage within the stipulated period of time.  Rent is payable in advance or arrears whichever is agreeable to the parties.
Section 54(b) implied obligation on the tenant to pay rates and taxes for which the landlord is not directly liable.
Section 54(c) and (d) There is the obligation to repair the leased premises
Tenant to keep the premises in goods state of repair.  Repair is defined under S. 54 as what would reasonably do
Obligation to repair or replace items of furniture under S. 54(c) where premises are let out furnished to keep the furniture in the same condition as was in the commencement of the lease arrangement.  In case any item is lost or destroyed or beyond repair, there is an implied obligation on part of the tenant to replace the item with similar ones of equal value.
the obligation not to sublease, charge Section 54(h) the tenant is obligated not to transfer, charge or sublease unless the landlord agrees in writing which does not rule out the possibility the tenant engaging in this if the permission has been procured.  The landlord consent should not be unreasonably withheld when it is sought.  In Premier Confectionary Co. V. London Commercial           consent was held to have been reasonably withheld where the transferred property would have been used for detrimental purposes with reference to the landlord’s own interests.   Similarly in Pimms Ltd V. Tallow Chandlers the court held that transfer consent was reasonably withheld where the sole object of the tenant was that the transferee should require statutory tenancy.  In all situations the reasonableness or otherwise of withholding the consent is a matter for the court to determine.  It is for the court to determine and to be guided by the facts of the case and surrounding circumstances.

Obligation of tenant to allow landlord or his agents to inspect his premises.  In the event that the landlord wishes to exercise this landlord the examination has to be at reasonable hours and prior reasonable notice is to be issued to the tenant and the right is not exercisable at any time that the landlord wishes and has to be reasonable hours and advance notice has to be given.  Similar obligations by virtues of S. 108(b) basically give the landlord the same rights.

Leases can be the subject of assignment

Assignment is possible so that a tenant who is put in exclusive possession by virtue of a lease for a specific period is at liberty to assign his lease and what remains with the landlord is the right of reversion.  The property is temporarily the property of the tenant by virtue of the estate which vests on the tenant.  The landlord retains the reversionary interest at the end of the lease.  The correct position is that each party can assign their interests in the property provided that there is due compliance with contractual rules regarding privity of contract as well as privity of estate.


The general approach is that obligations and rights are the same.  Sections 32-34 are instructive and relate to implied covenants as to development of the property on the part of the Lessee who is obliged to effect such improvements on the land leased out within the first 3 years of the lease and to maintain the said improvements at all times to effect additional improvements as specified in the 1st schedule to the Act and is obliged to maintain the improvements so effected after expiration of the first 5 years of the lease.

Section 34 imposes restrictions not to sublease without seeking and obtaining consent from the commissioner for lands.


Like Us on Facebook

Contact Form


Email *

Message *