## Facts

- The case concerned whether an implied periodic tenancy arose between parties in the absence of a formal, signed lease agreement.
- The property owner and the occupant were engaged in ongoing negotiations for a formal lease.
- The occupant entered and continued to use the property and made regular rent payments during these negotiations.
- The property owner argued that the existence of ongoing negotiations meant no tenancy had been created.
- The owner accepted rent while permitting occupation of the property.

## Issues

1. Whether the conduct of the parties, particularly ongoing rent payments and occupation during lease negotiations, was sufficient to create an implied periodic tenancy.
2. Whether ongoing negotiations for a formal lease precluded the formation of a tenancy before a written agreement was reached.
3. Whether the intent of the parties as demonstrated by their actions determined the legal status of the occupancy.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held that an implied periodic tenancy had arisen based on the parties' conduct.
- It found that continued occupation and payment of rent, even amid lease negotiations, evidenced an intention to create a tenancy.
- The Court rejected the property owner's claim that negotiations alone prevented tenancy formation, noting that only if parties clearly agree to delay the creation of legal relations until a formal document is signed would a tenancy not arise.
- The periodicity of the tenancy was determined by the interval at which rent was paid (e.g., monthly).

## Legal Principles

- An implied periodic tenancy may be formed by conduct, such as regular rent payments and occupation, even in the absence of a written lease.
- Ongoing negotiations regarding a formal lease do not by themselves prevent such a tenancy from arising, unless the parties have clearly agreed to defer legal relations until execution of a formal lease.
- The period of the implied tenancy generally corresponds to the frequency of rent payments.
- Clear written agreements are critical to avoid disputes about whether a tenancy has been created during negotiations.
- Principles align with earlier case law examining legal and equitable leases, such as Walsh v Lonsdale (1882) 21 Ch D 9, but the focus is on the intent and actions of the parties.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal in Javad v Aqil confirmed that an implied periodic tenancy can arise during lease negotiations where the parties' actions—such as the acceptance of rent and ongoing occupation—indicate an intention to create immediate legal relations, underscoring the importance of clear documentation of intent in property transactions.

Javad v Aqil [1991] 1 WLR 1007