Legal Battle Over Tenancy Succession Rights: Rahimi v Westminster Council

Citation: [2024] EWCA Civ 73
Judgment on


In the case of Armin Rahimi v City of Westminster Council ([2024] EWCA Civ 73), the pivotal legal question revolved around whether Mr. Rahimi, the appellant, was eligible to succeed his grandmother, Mrs. Hussain’s secure tenancy of a flat following her death. The complexity of the case hinged on whether, at the time of her death, Mrs. Hussain held a sole tenancy or remained in a joint tenancy with her estranged husband, Mr. Kazam. This article analyses the legal principles at play, scrutinizes the reasoning of the judges involved, and synthesizes the resultant legal implications.

Key Facts

  1. Mr. Kazam and Mrs. Hussain held a joint tenancy of the flat.
  2. Mr. Kazam left the property, was rehoused, and was removed from the rent account.
  3. After Mrs. Hussain’s death, Mr. Rahimi claimed succession rights to the tenancy.
  4. Central to the issue was whether the tenancy had transformed into a sole tenancy held by Mrs. Hussain via implied surrender and regrant.

The case’s judgment hinges upon the legal concepts of joint tenancy, secure tenancy under the Housing Act 1985, surrender by operation of law, and the principles for the implication of a new tenancy agreement.

Joint and Secure Tenancy

A joint tenancy involves two parties sharing possession and liabilities associated with a property. The secure tenancy status under the Housing Act 1985 requires the dwelling to be the tenant’s principal home. If one joint tenant departs, the tenancy can potentially transition to a sole tenancy or end altogether.

Surrender and Regrant

”Surrender and regrant” occurs when an act is unequivocal and inconsistent with the continuation of a particular estate or tenancy, leading the law to treat such an act as a surrender, followed by a grant of a new tenancy. Importantly, this process requires the involvement and agreement of all parties (e.g., both tenants and the landlord).

Inference of a New Tenancy

In situations where an express agreement is absent, the court must infer a new tenancy from the conduct of the parties - conduct that must be unequivocal and of such a nature that would not make sense if the original tenancy continued to exist. The implication of a tenancy rests on discerning the intention of all parties involved and the inconsistency of concurrent multiple tenancies over the same property.


The Court of Appeal’s decision was split. Lord Justice Lewison delivered the leading judgment, indicating that no new tenancy had been granted to Mrs. Hussain as there was no unequivocal conduct or agreement signifying such an event, nor consent from Mr. Kazam. Therefore, the original joint tenancy was inferred to have carried on, evolving into a tenancy by survivorship once held by Mr. Kazam upon Mrs. Hussain’s death.

Lady Justice Macur dissented, arguing in favour of a remittal based on the possibility, although not inevitably, of inferring a new tenancy from the cumulative conduct surrounding the case.

Lord Justice Newey agreed with Lewison LJ, emphasizing that conduct consistent with ongoing prior obligations fails to demonstrate the creation of a new contract or, in this context, a tenancy.


The Armin Rahimi v City of Westminster Council case intricately deals with the alteration of tenancy status due to changes in occupancy and conduct of the parties. The legal analysis underscored the principles that must be unequivocally manifested to infer a new tenancy, particularly in the context of public housing law. This judgment serves as a staunch reminder that implications of such new agreements demand a high degree of proof, with clear behavioural evidence stating intention. The majority ruling maintained that the secure joint tenancy remained intact until Mrs. Hussain’s death, reflecting the stringent standards required for altering tenancy agreements that affect succession rights.

Related Summaries