Odger's English Common Law

PROVISO FOR KE-ENTRY. 443
must show that under the terras of the tenancy he is now
entitled to call upon the defendant to surrender possession of
the premises. In other words, he must show that the terra of
years for which the lease was granted has now expired by
effluxion of time ; or if the tenancy was from year to year
only, that it has been duly determined by a notice to quit
or, thirdly, that the lease contains a proviso for re-entry in
case the tenant breaks any covenant in it by him to be per-
formed, and that the defendant has broken such a covenant
and thereby forfeited his lease.
The Conveyancing Acts of 1881 and 1892, 1
however, contain
provisions strongly in favour of a tenant in whose lease there
is such a proviso for re-entry. Xo landlord can bring an
action to enforce a forfeiture and re-enter on the premises
unless, a reasonable time before commencing the action, he
serves on his tenant a notice setting out the particular breach
complained of, and requiring him to put it right and pay a
sum of money as compensation. 2 But no such notice is
necessary where the ground of forfeiture is :
(i.) Non-payment of rent.
(ii.) Breach of a covenant against assigning, sub-letting or
parting with the possession of the demised property.
(iii.) Breach of a covenant in a mining lease which allows
the lessor to inspect property or books and accounts.
(iv. ) Bankruptcy of the lessee, or the taking in execution
of the lessee's interest, unless the action be commenced
within one year from the date of the bank-
—
ruptcy or of the taking in execution. 3
In these cases, therefore, the landlord is not bound to give
any such notice ;
in all other cases he must.
If, however, a landlord seeks to eject his tenant for non-
payment of rent, he will experience some difficulty unless
the proviso for re-entry in his lease contains the words
"whether the same shall have been demanded or not." If
it does, he has merely to prove that the defendant had not
i 44 & 45 Vict. o. 41, s. 14 ; 55 & 56 Vict. c. 13, s. 2.
8 See Fox v. Jolly, [1916] A. C. 1.
3 See Horsey Estate, Ltd. v. Steiger, [1899] 2 Q. B. 79, 91 ; Fryer v. Ewart,
[1902] A. C. 187.
;