Introduction
This is perhaps the area of law which has the greatest impact on ordinary people. Even before you complete law school, you may have friends and relatives coming to you for advice on either side of a landlord-tenant dispute. Or you may have an issue yourself.

In a lease, both the landlord and the tenant have obligations. They can be sued on these obligations, and the breach of the obligations may also be a good reason to end the lease early.

Certain covenants are implied by the common law. These are: tenant’s covenant to pay rent and to keep the place in good tenantable repair (fair wear and tear excepted), and the landlord’s covenants to grant quiet enjoyment and not to derogate from the grant.

Note that there is no implied covenant that the landlord should maintain or repair the premises, but there are exceptions.

This has nothing to do with noise, but simply means that the tenant should be able to reside in the premises generally undisturbed. In the territories where the doctrine interesse termini applies, the covenant means that the landlord must also put the tenant into possession (ie, that the tenant can sue for breach of this covenant if the landlord refuses to allow him to enter the house). This doctrine has been abolished in Barbados.

As stated, this covenant has nothing to do with actual noise. Hence in the case Southwark LBC v Tanner ([2001] 1 AC 1, HL, where due to inadequate insulation the tenants could hear everything that happened in the other flats, the House of Lords stated that there had been no breach of this particular covenant by the landlord. On the other hand, in Kenny v Preen [1963] 1 QB 499, AC, where the landlord who had illegally served notice on an elderly lady, wrote letters threatening to put her property into the street and banged on the door saying that he would have her removed, the Court held that this was a breach of the covenant.

Note that in Browne v Flower [1913] 1 Ch 219 where the landlord built a new staircase outside the tenant’s window thus causing her a loss of privacy, this was not held to be a breach of the covenant.

The landlord must not give with one hand and take away with the other. Where he has let the premises for a particular purpose, he cannot obstruct that purpose. Hence in Aldin v Latimer Clarke, Muirhead [1894] 2 Ch 437 where the landlord let the premises for the express purpose of drying timber, the Court held that he could not erect a structure which would interfere with the ventilation.

The landlord is not held to have breached the covenant where the tenant’s use is unusually sensitive and the landlord was unaware. This was the case in Robinson v Kilvert (1889) 41 ChD 88 where the tenant was storing brown paper[1] which was damaged by the landlord’s construction at a neighbouring site.

It is not a breach of the covenant where the landlord rents the neighbouring premises to the tenant's competitors. Although it may cause economic hardship to the tenant, it does not render the premises unfit for use: Port v Griffith [1938]1 All ER 295.

Note that the landlord does not have a statutory obligation to repair the premises. Where a furnished property is being rented, he may have an obligation to ensure that they are fit for human habitation at the beginning (see the explanation of this requirement in Hamblin v Samuel (1966) 11 WIR 48) but he does not have an obligation to keep it that way for the duration of the lease.

In general the tenant has a duty to ensure that he keeps the premises in good tenant-like repair, fair wear and tear excepted. Lord Denning explains this in Warren v Keen [1954] 1 QB 15: "[the tenant] must take proper care of the place. ... He must clean the chimneys, when necessary and also the windows. He must mend the electric light when it fuses. He must unstop the sink when it is blocked by his waste ... But apart from such things, if the house falls into disrepair through fair wear and tear or lapse of time, or for any reason not caused by him, then the tenant is not liable to repair it".

The tenant is also responsible for collateral damage if he fails to carry out minor repairs. The usual example is that he is not obliged to fix a tile which has blown off the roof, but is liable for any damage caused by subsequent flooding.

In practice, the matter of repair is one of negotiation between the parties. Where the landlord has the obligation to repair, the tenant may, after reporting a problem and waiting for a reasonable period, apply the rent monies to fix it himself.

The landlord obviously has an interest in maintaining the value of the property, and is likely to want to ensure that certain repairs are carried out, and the tenant always has the option of moving out if he is not comfortable. However, where the lease is a long one, there is generally a greater burden of repair on the tenant who is in a position more akin to owner.

The tenant may be under an obligation not to assign or sublet the property. Subletting means to grant a part of one’s lease. Recall that a lease is a property rented for a length of time. An assignment occurs where the tenant rents out the whole of his rented property for the remainder of the time on his lease. A sublet occurs when the tenant rents either a part of his premises or rents for a part of the time remaining on the lease. Even if the new sublease is only one day shorter than the tenant’s own lease, it is considered a sublease and not an assignment.

In general the tenant must notify the landlord that he intends to sublet, and the landlord must not withhold his consent unreasonably. Any provisions in the lease will be construed against the landlord. Hence, if the lease provides only that the tenant may not sublet, the tenant will still be allowed to assign, and vice versa.

Breach of this provision is not remediable (see below) and may be good cause for the landlord to forfeit the lease.

The concept of privity examines who can sue and who can be sued. There is a person who owns the title to the house, and a person who is currently occupying it. Can they enforce the landlord and tenant covenants against each other?

If both parties signed the original lease then they have privity of contract and they can sue each other.

However, if one or both parties are not the original signatory, then the Court must examine whether they have accrued rights to sue or be sued. It may be necessary for them to track down the original signatories. The court will also look to see if the two parties have privity of estate which will give them rights against each other.

Privity of estate means that various parties have an interest in the same property. One estate can have several interests: owner, tenant, beneficiary, mortgagee, etc.

Where the original landlord (L1) assigns the reversion (i.e. sells the property), privity of estate exists between the new landlord (L2) and the original tenant (T1). They will be not be able to enforce personal clauses in the lease against each other, but will be able to enforce clauses which touch and concern the land.

When the tenant (T1) assigns the lease, the assignee (T2) gains the interest in the land, and gains the ability to sue and be sued. However, when the tenant/assignee sublets, the subtenant (ST) is not considered to have an interest in the land. The tenant remains in possession through the subtenant. The subtenant cannot sue or be sued by the original or new landlord, but the tenant’s assignee can.

Note that the new landlord (L2) can sue for breaches which occurred before his assignment.

[1] This case was the first I had ever heard of "brown paper" outside the song Jack and Jill! "Up Jack got and home did trot as fast as he could caper. He went to bed and wrapped his head in vinegar and brown paper". :)