As the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954 marks its 50th anniversary, District Judge Neil Hickman pores over the small print of the looming business tenancy revolution

This year, sees the 50th birthday of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954.

Parliament is celebrating with the Regulatory Reform (Business Tenancies) (England and Wales) Order 2003, SI 2003/3096, which drastically amends the procedures under the Act.

The order will take effect on 1 June 2004.

As at present, the landlord may initiate his quest for a new tenancy (or possession) by serving the tenant with a notice in a prescribed form.

A new section 25(8) to the Act, provides that a landlord's notice stating that the landlord is not opposed to the grant of a new tenancy must set out the landlord's proposals as to the property to be comprised in the tenancy, and the rent and other terms of the new tenancy.

Section 25(5), requiring the tenant to give a counter-notice saying that he is not willing to give up possession, is omitted, doing away with one of the pitfalls in which the Act traditionally abounded.

Either landlord or tenant will be able to apply to the court under section 24 for an order for the grant of a new tenancy - at present, only the tenant may apply.

Once either of them has made and served an application, the other may not make an application.

If the landlord has given notice under section 25 stating that he opposes the grant of a new tenancy - or has given the tenant notice to that effect under section 26(6) following a tenant's request for a new tenancy - the landlord may take the initiative and apply to the court under the new section 29(2) for the tenancy to be terminated without a new tenancy being granted.

Anti-avoidance provisions in new sections 24(2C) and 29(6) provide that once the landlord has made an application, he may only withdraw it with the tenant's consent.

The rigid time-limits in section 29, which have been so expensive for solicitors' professional indemnity insurers over the years, are dramatically altered in a new section 29A.

This provides that an application to the court by either party under section 24 or by the landlord under section 29(2) must be made on or before the date specified in the section 25 notice or section 26 request.

Where the tenant has made a section 26 request, he may not apply to the court within two months of the request unless the landlord has given notice under section 26(6) that he will oppose the grant of a new tenancy.

In that case, the tenant may apply to the court to establish his position without waiting two months.

It has been clear since Kammins Ballrooms v Zenith Investments [1971] AC 850 that the parties could agree to waive the time-limits under the Act, but few dared risk it.

A new section 29B explicitly allows the parties to agree to extend the period for applying to the court, provided they do so before the current period expires.

This should address the concerns of those who have been critical of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 rule 56.3; a case only needs to start its way through the court system if the parties are unable to agree.

There are amendments that effectively equate an individual with a company in which he has a controlling interest.

And there is an engaging definition in a new section 46(2) - a person has a controlling interest in a company if, had he been a company, the other company would have been its subsidiary.

The interim rent provisions of section 24A are changed.

Either landlord or tenant may apply.

The interim rent will be payable from the 'appropriate date', which is the earliest date that could have been specified in the landlord's notice or tenant's request as the case may be.

Where a new tenancy is granted, a new section 24C provides that the interim rent will normally be the same as the rent under the new tenancy.

However, it will be possible to argue that market conditions or the property comprised in the tenancy have changed in a way that should affect the rent.

Section 33 is amended - the maximum duration of the new tenancy that can be granted goes up from 14 to 15 years, thereby accommodating all the people who have been applying for 15-year terms anyway.

So much for applications for new tenancies under the Act.

What will perhaps be of more immediate and far-reaching effect is the change in the procedures for excluding the provisions of part 2 of the Act, either on the grant of a tenancy or an agreement to surrender.

It is goodbye to the existing ritual of an application by consent to the county court and the payment of a 130 court fee.

In its place, courtesy of a new section 38A is the service of a prescribed notice, colloquially called the 'health warning'.

The form of notice for the grant of a tenancy is in schedule 1 to the order and that for an agreement to surrender is in schedule 3.

The health warning must be given at least 14 days before the tenancy or agreement is to be entered into, and the tenant must sign a declaration that he has received it.

If the parties wish to waive the 14-day period, the tenant must sign a statutory declaration.

The wording of the required declarations appears in the schedules.

The order amends the rules governing the compensation payable to a tenant whose tenancy is not renewed, and the rules governing the exchange of information.

Transitional provisions often make life complicated.

The straightforward provisions in paragraph 29 of the order are a welcome change.

If a section 25 notice or section 26 request has been made by 31 May 2004, the old rules apply.

Similarly, the order does not apply to an agreement to surrender authorised by the court and made by 31 May 2004.

If the tenant has given his landlord the three months' notice terminating on a quarter day that will terminate his continuation tenancy under section 27(2), that notice will remain effective.

If a tenancy requires an order under section 38 to be obtained in respect of any sub-tenancy, then from 1 June 2004 the provision will be interpreted as requiring the section 38A procedure to be followed.

The one situation in which a district judge may still find a section 38 application in his boxwork after 1 June 2004 is if parties have entered into an agreement before that date for a tenancy that requires an order under the section to be obtained.

In those circumstances alone, the court will retain jurisdiction to make it.

District Judge Neil Hickman sits at Milton Keynes County Court and is a contributor to Jordans' Civil Court Service