Yenula Properties Ltd v Venkat Mun Swami Naidu (2001)
A notice under s.20 Housing Act 1988 was not required to be personally served upon the tenant but could validly be served upon his duly authorised agent.
(1) The fact of access did not itself prove an intention to create a tenancy. On the evidence the court was satisfied that there was no such intention on 1 August 1995. The tenancy came into existence on the date that the agreement was signed. (2) The court was also satisfied on the evidence that a s.20 notice was served on M prior to execution of the agreement. (3) The tenant had authorised M to do whatever was required to achieve completion of the tenancy. That included accepting service of the notice, since that was the only way that the tenant would be allowed into occupation by the landlord. It followed that M had actual authority to accept service. (4) There was nothing in s.20 of the 1988 Act to suggest that the necessary notice could not be validly served upon the tenant's agent.