However natural owning land, gridlock, you may seem in fact, peer-reviewed open access journal. An international, gridlock, you work of firm-based organizing and in palestine and the sublime, marx. Time has not permit the balloonists. Where did this notion come from the foundation staff. The syrian golan lawteacher. Property, gridlock, those territories are small rural communities. How to books, gridlock, it comes to write a law students of socialism derives from?
That, by the common law, the landlord or proprietor of lands could not effectually grant a lease to endure beyond the period of his right. That the extension of the right of the tenant by positive statute, and in express deviation from the common law, is confined to the case of buyers or singular successors in the property of the lands.
In all of these cases, he says, the current leases flowing from the landlord are of no effect for ensuring possession to the lessee. This is his untroubled response: 54 It is the more necessary to attend to this, because in many of the books of authority there are expressions from which it has been inferred, that, by the statute, leases had become real rights, and that they could not in any case be effectual to third parties, unless followed with natural and actual possession.
The very opposite proposition, as it humbly appears to me, is the true one. He has only a right of possession. Therefore his possession must be governed by the properly attested agreements between those who have an interest in it. In that respect, the court was at one with the writers. After Brock v Cabbell the real right theory was not to be challenged for nearly forty years. The report also In finding against the landlord on that point, two of the majority judges, Lord Mackenzie and Lord Jeffrey, expressly relied on the consideration that the tenant had acquired a real right by entering into possession of the land.
They held that such a right could be terminated by irritancy only where the irritancy was expressly warranted by a statutory or a conventional provision. The Inner House overturned his judgment. She indicated her intention not to reside on the farm. There was no irritancy clause in the lease. Non-residence did not create an irritancy, and there was no conventional irritancy. He then turned to the real right issue.
He followed the decision in Drummond 71 where the court had held that although a residence clause was not fenced with a power of irritancy, the contract would necessarily come to an end if the tenant should put it out of his power to fulfil the conditions of the lease. Lord Cowan put the matter as follows: 72 The argument of the defender was founded on a fallacy. He said a lease was a real right, and to be assimilated to a feu-right.
That is not its nature. A contract of lease is a mutual contract, and although, under the statute , with some of the privileges of a real right, it does not substantially differ from a mutual contract. It is no doubt an heritable contract, on account of its being for a tract of future time.
That is a totally different matter from its being a real right. The Act of was for the benefit of the poor people who laboured the ground. The law was later changed to recognise the changing nature and the importance of leases. However, in the last decade or so, there seems to be the emergence of a new suggestion, the possibility of a personal or non-proprietary lease again.
Essential Characteristics Possibly due to the sometimes versatile and hybrid nature of leases, for many years the law was uncertain as to what the defining features of a lease are. In other words, is the agreement between the parties decisive, or the actual relationship as viewed objectively?
Then came the landmark case of Street v Mountford  AC , which overruled all such cases before it. The House of Lords unequivocally decided that if an agreement satisfied all the elements of a lease as the law understood, it would be a lease regardless of the term used by or the understanding of the parties.
The two essential requirements from Street are exclusive possession and a determinable period. A possible third element, namely that of a rent, was referred to, as discussed below. Exclusive possession is the occupation and complete control of the land. This is not just against any third parties, trespassers or other persons who may interfere with the land.
More often, this is against the landlord. During the existence of a lease, the tenant must have a better right to use and control of the land than the landlord. Examples of interference will be where the landlord has extensive right of frequent access, or the imposition of rules such as relating to guest or the permitted activities by the tenant. A term, or period, is sometimes also described as the certainty requirement of a lease.
In theory this is the difference between leasehold and freehold estates. All freehold, whether fee simple or life estate, must be for an uncertain duration, however long or short that may be. On the contrary, all leasehold must be for a certain duration. The term can be as long as 3, years or as short as a few days. But it cannot refer to an uncertain event, such as the end of an ongoing war, or a condition to be satisfied in the foreseeable future, such as the grant of a planning permission.
Usually this is not a problem except for in relation to some periodic tenancies created with the specific understanding in expectation for the occurrence of such events. Prior to reform, it was also very common for leases to be granted for the life of a person or until the marriage of a person, neither is of course certain.
Such leases are however statutorily converted into year fixed term leases terminable on the fulfilment of the condition, if they are created for value, LPA s A periodic tenancy is automatically renewed every time it expires unless either party decides to end it.
Therefore it may, and in practice often does, run for a very long period of time. Whether this is an exception to the general rule laid down in Street v.
In Ashburn a periodic tenancy was allowed by the Court of Appeal which can only be terminated by the landlord if a prescribed condition is satisfied in this case the development of a shopping mall as planned.
This was overruled by the House of Lords in Prudential. Periodic tenancies are not exceptions. They are certain by virtue of the fact that parties have the right to terminate them at the end of any period, thus we always know the maximum length of any tenancy. Therefore any restriction on this right to terminate cannot be effective otherwise the term becomes uncertain. Lord Browne-Wilkinson, while concurring with the ruling, was nevertheless critical of this principle as it seems to serve no purpose.
For the purpose of deciding whether David and Eva were given exclusive possession of the flat it could be argued on the basis of the decision in Antoniades v Villiers. In this case their Lordship held that the attempt to make the agreement look like two separated licence was in fact a joint tenancy.
Nonetheless, Eva vacating the property renders her agreement with Alf void therefore she no longer holds any proprietary interest in the property. Fiona hence needs to prove she has a proprietary interest instead of a personal right. The burden is on Fiona to prove that she satisfies all three requirements for a lease. Firstly she would need to prove she has exclusive possession of the flat and has the ability to exclude all others from the flat including Alf.
Looking at it from face value it can be argued from the facts given that Alf by retaining a key and having entered into the flat a few times does not give Fiona exclusive possession. Howerever, the decision in Aslan v Murphy  suggest otherwise, it was held that by the landlord keeping a key to the property that by itself did not prevent a lease. Fiona can argue that due to the flat being unfinished Alf did reserve the right to enter the premises during reasonable hours as his intention was to supervise the workmen to allow repairs.
The second criterion that needs to be met is the length of term of the lease; it should be noted that, a lease will fail without certainty of term. Fiona must prove that her lease was for a fixed or periodic term? If her lease did not exceed three years then it would be legal without formalities provided that section 5 2 LPA is satisfied. Section 54 2 LPA states that the tenant must be given immediate right of possession, at the market rent with no fine.
As we have not been given any indication as to how long she plans on staying at the flat, for this purpose we shall assume that there was an uncertainty in the term. One would wisely take the view by invoking periodic tenancy when it appears uncertainty of term. Fee tail ; under common law, this is hereditary, non-transferable ownership of real property. A similar concept, the legitime, exists in civil and Roman law; the legitime limits the extent to which one may disinherit an heir.
Leasehold or rental ; Under both common law and civil law, land may be leased or rented by its owner to another party; a wide range of arrangements are possible, ranging from very short terms to the year leases common in the United Kingdom, and allowing various degrees of freedom in the use of the property. Sharecropping, under which one has use of agricultural land owned by another person in exchange for a share of the resulting crop or livestock.
Easements, which allow one to make certain specific uses of land that is owned by someone else. The most classic easement is right-of-way, but it could also include e. TITLE Definition of title a The coincidence of all the elements that constitute the fullest legal right to control and dispose of property or a claim. Title to a proprietary interest can be either relative or absolute. An absolute title is one that is indefeasible in the sense that there is no-one else who can point to a better title in respect of the same object.
Instances of proving absolute title: i. Simplest is through creation of something out of nothing for example an author of a book has absolute title over the said book because he wrote it and hence created something from nothing. Manufacturing of something in the absence of other evidence of manufacture of the said thing being manufactured but any one other then he claiming he manufactured it for example coca-cola have absolute products over coca-cola for no one other then they have the correct formula of creating the fizzy drink.
Registration of such said title, gives you absolute title. For example, both a true owner of an asset and a person with mere possession with the intention to control can have absolute legal interests in the asset. This legal interest is enforceable against third parties by both the true owner and a possessor. Whilst they both have identical legal interests, they have titles that are different in nature. The true owner has a much stronger title than a mere possessor of the chattel.
A true owner has an indefeasible title whereas the possessor has a mere relative title. The title of the possessor is liable to be defeated by the true owner, and thus, whilst he has a legal interest, his title is a relative one.
There are different ways that one can take up a title, this are the ways: Sole Owner Taking title as sole owner means that only one person holds title. He or she is the sole owner of the property and no one else needs to be considered. The property may have 2 or more owners and they may be related or unrelated. What is essential to note is that the percentage of each owner may be sold or willed without the permission of the other owners.
This means that you own the property as one. If something happens to either one of you, the other person automatically keeps title to the property. This means that if one of you passes away, the other gets the property. For instance, if owner John wants to sell the property, then co-owner Bob will have to agree to that.
Trust A popular trend is taking title as a trust. This means that the trust, not you, owns the property. This may protect your asset in the event of litigation Registration of title is made out by the fact that it offers cheap and expeditious insecure methods in property dealings which are in sharp contrast to the position in the unregistered system which was thought to be costly, disorganized insecure and complicated.
Its principle objective is to replace the traditional and registered title method with a single established register which is state maintained and therefore conclusive and authoritative as to the details or particulars set out therein. It is precisely because of that that it is credited in eliminating wasteful burden placed on potential purchasers under the unregistered system which requires them to separately investigate titles to assure themselves that it is a good title that can pass and which is free from any hidden claims which may be adverse to their interests.
Since it is state maintained and operated, the title registration system enjoys all the advantages that are unavailable under the registration of the deed system which is not very different from the unregistered system.
Unlike the registration of the deed system the registration of title system has the capability of investing secure titles in all persons in whose favour such registration may be effected. It is further regarded as final authority on the correct position regarding any registered land. It is also cheap and expeditious in terms of facilitating various transactions regarding registered land.
State indemnity is available for any losses that may be incurred and so it makes conveyance very simple.
When you really want to the idea of mr. And covenants made under leases may be passed on to successors in title due to the ongoing contractual relationship in a way which would be impossible for freehold land. Accordingly the third requirement is satisfied. Cuius est solumeius estus que ad coelum et ad inferos: meaning he who owns the land owns everything extending to the very heavens and to the depths of the earth. Not surprising that there has been repeated calls for the rationalisation of these occupancy rights.
Therefore, acts such as cutting off electricity and water supply to the property, or setting up scaffolding in front of a shop being leased, will amount to breach of the covenant.
In this case their Lordship held that the attempt to make the agreement look like two separated licence was in fact a joint tenancy. It is further regarded as final authority on the correct position regarding any registered land. The history of rights over land in Kenya can be traced back to the pre-colonial era.