A High Court judge has confirmed that a landlord can require tenants to vacate premises where that is reasonably necessary to carry out major repairs.
The High Court's decision in MSA Properties Limited v The Drapery Northampton LTD [2026] EWHC 1420 (KB) provides important guidance on the balance between a landlord's obligation to repair a building and a tenant's contractual right to quiet enjoyment.
The dispute arose after part of the ceiling in a loading bay beneath two residential flats collapsed, revealing extensive rot in several structural floor joists. The freeholder sought access to the flats above to carry out repairs, whereas the tenant argued that the works could be undertaken without requiring the flats to be vacated.
The lease contained the usual covenant for quiet enjoyment, requiring the landlord not to interfere with the tenant's quiet enjoyment of the premises. However, it also granted the landlord a broad right to enter the premises to inspect, maintain and repair the building, subject to an obligation to cause as little damage and disturbance as reasonably practicable.
The court considered the expert evidence put forward by both parties and preferred the evidence of the landlord's structural engineer which found that six of the seven affected joists required replacement. It also accepted that, for safety reasons, the works should be carried out from above through the flats rather than from below. Although alternative methods were theoretically possible, they involved materially greater risks for residents, contractors and other users of the building.
Importantly, the judgment reinforces the principles established in Century Projects Limited v Almacantar (Centre Point) Limited [2014] EWHC 394 (Ch), namely that where more than one method of remedying disrepair is available, the party responsible for carrying out the repairs is generally entitled to choose the method of repair, provided that choice is reasonable. The court also reiterated that a landlord's repairing covenant and a tenant's right to quiet enjoyment must be read together. Neither right automatically overrides the other, and the key question is whether the landlord has acted reasonably in the circumstances.
The particular significance of this case is its consideration of whether it can be reasonable for a landlord to require a tenant to temporarily vacate premises in order to carry out repair works. The tenant argued that a landlord should only be able to require vacant possession where no alternative method of repair exists. The court rejected that argument and confirmed that there is no such absolute rule. Instead, the same assessment of reasonableness applies. Where a landlord has properly considered the available options, the impact on the tenant and the relevant safety considerations, it may be entitled to select a repair method that requires the tenant to vacate, even if other methods are technically possible.
For landlords, the decision confirms that they retain a degree of discretion in deciding how best to fulfil their repairing obligations, particularly where significant structural works and safety considerations are involved. For tenants, the judgment demonstrates that the covenant for quiet enjoyment does not guarantee uninterrupted occupation where substantial repairs are required. However, landlords must still be able to justify their approach and show that they have taken reasonable steps to minimise disruption.
Applying those principles, the court held that the landlord was entitled to access the flats and require vacant possession for the works, although it reduced the period sought from ten weeks to six weeks in order to minimise the impact on the tenant.
This decision reinforces existing authority that disputes between repairing obligations and quiet enjoyment are ultimately resolved through a fact-sensitive assessment of reasonableness, including where a landlord seeks to require a tenant to vacate premises to facilitate major repair works.
