Sumeghovo v McMahon [2002]

A landlord who slept in the house in which he rented a room to a tenant was determined to be a resident landlord, despite spending most of his time in a property he owned next door.

A landlord granted a tenancy of a room in his house. The slept in this house, but spent a lot of time in a neighbouring property that he also owned and for which he was on the electoral role.
The landlord informed the tenant that he needed the room from the a date the following month, and nine days after that month he evicted her and threw her belongings on to the pavement outside. He had not obtained a possession order from the court.
The tenant took action under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, which is something that only a 'resident' landlord is normally permitted to do.
The court had to determine whether or not the landlord occupied the room in the house he shared with the tenant as his ‘only or principal home’. If he did, the tenancy was an excluded tenancy for the purposes of the Protection from Eviction Act and the eviction was lawful as the landlord had not needed a possession order. It was decided that he did not, the eviction would have been unlawful.

HELD: The Court of Appeal held that that the house in which the landlord slept was his only or principal home, and therefore he had resident landlord status. This meant that the tenancy was excluded from the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, and the eviction had been lawful.

Citation: Sumeghovo v McMahon [2002] EWCA Civ 1581