## Facts

- Hounslow London Borough Council (the landlord) and Twickenham Garden Development Ltd (the tenant) were parties to a lease agreement requiring the tenant to maintain the premises in good repair.
- The landlord alleged that the tenant failed to comply with the maintenance covenant, constituting a breach of the lease.
- In response to the alleged breach, the landlord sought to forfeit the lease and re-enter the premises.
- The landlord served a notice under section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925, specifying the nature of the breach and the remedy required.
- The tenant contested the forfeiture, arguing the breach was minor and had been rectified, and sought equitable relief against forfeiture.
- The case was decided by the Court of Appeal, which examined the landlord’s right to re-enter and the availability of relief to the tenant.

## Issues

1. Whether the landlord had lawfully exercised the right of re-entry under the lease given the alleged breach by the tenant.
2. Whether the notice served under section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925 met statutory requirements for forfeiture.
3. Whether the tenant was entitled to equitable relief against forfeiture, considering the nature and extent of the breach.
4. How lease covenants should be interpreted when resolving landlord-tenant disputes regarding forfeiture.

## Decision

- The Court scrutinized whether the landlord had complied with the statutory and contractual procedures required for lawful forfeiture.
- It was determined that landlords must strictly follow the terms of the lease and relevant statute, including adequate notice specifying the breach and providing an opportunity to remedy it.
- The Court emphasized its discretion to grant equitable relief against forfeiture, particularly where a breach is minor or has been remedied, and where denial would cause undue hardship to the tenant.
- The judgment favored a practical and contextual interpretation of lease covenants, rejecting overly technical or rigid approaches.

## Legal Principles

- Forfeiture as a landlord’s remedy for breach of covenant is subject to both statutory and equitable limitations.
- Strict procedural compliance with section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925 is required for lawful re-entry.
- The court possesses discretion to grant relief against forfeiture based on the circumstances, including seriousness and remediation of the breach and the conduct of the tenant.
- Lease covenants are to be interpreted contextually, considering the intentions of the parties and practical realities.
- Statutory compliance serves as a safeguard against arbitrary eviction and reinforces tenant protections.

## Conclusion

Hounslow LBC v Twickenham Garden Development Ltd [1971] Ch 233 clarified the procedural and equitable restrictions on landlords’ rights of forfeiture and re-entry. The Court of Appeal stressed the need for strict statutory compliance, practical interpretation of covenants, and the availability of relief against forfeiture, thereby establishing robust legal standards for resolving disputes over wrongful eviction and lease termination.