Veeraswamy, Redevelopment and Ground (f): A Quick Guide for Landlords and Tenants

The dispute between the oldest Indian restaurant in London, Veeraswamy and its landlord, The Crown Estate, has brought renewed attention to Ground (f) of section 30(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. The Crown Estate is seeking possession on the grounds that it intends to carry out a substantial redevelopment of Victory House, whilst Veeraswamy contends that it should be entitled to a new lease.  It has also argued that it can stay whilst any works are being carried out.  The case was heard this month and the decision will be given in due course.

The case is an important reminder of the evidential burden on landlords seeking to oppose renewal on redevelopment grounds.

Ground (f) enables a landlord to oppose the grant of a new tenancy where it genuinely intends to demolish, reconstruct or carry out substantial works to the premises and cannot reasonably do so without obtaining vacant possession.

Landlord Checklist: Can You Rely on Ground (f)?

1. Detailed redevelopment plans prepared.
2. Genuine and settled intention to carry out the works.
3. Funding in place.
4. Planning permission obtained or realistically achievable.
5. Works are substantial, not cosmetic.
6. Vacant possession is genuinely required.
7. The scheme is not designed solely to defeat the tenant’s security of tenure

Tenant Checklist: How Can You Challenge Ground (f)?

1. Is the landlord’s intention genuine?
2. Are the proposed works actually substantial (this will turn on the facts)?
3. Could the works be undertaken whilst the tenant remains in occupation?
4. Is funding secured?
5. Are planning permissions in place?
6. Has the redevelopment scheme been created primarily to remove the tenant?
7. Has entitlement to statutory compensation been assessed?

Statutory Compensation

Even where a landlord successfully opposes renewal under Ground (f), the tenant will usually be entitled to statutory compensation. This is generally calculated at the rateable value of the premises, increasing to twice the rateable value where the tenant (or its predecessors) has been in occupation for 14 years or more.

Whilst statutory compensation can sometimes be significant, it rarely reflects the true value of a long-established business, its goodwill, customer base, trading location or the costs of moving.  Indeed Veeraswamy have argued that the £500,000 statutory compensation on offer is a fraction of the cost of moving and refitting alternative premises.   Landlords should therefore factor compensation into redevelopment appraisals at an early stage, and tenants should ensure that their entitlement is accurately assessed.

A Further Warning for Landlords

Landlords should also be aware that timing of the redevelopment matters.  The works have to  be commenced within a reasonable time “on termination of the tenancy”.  In Pridewell Properties (London) Ltd v Spirit Pub Company (Managed) Ltd [2026], the High Court decided that the landlord’s timescale of starting works within 10-14 months after the possession date was not reasonable, and so ground (f) was not made out and the tenant was entitled to stay.

Key Points

The Veeraswamy dispute demonstrates that Ground (f) cases are won or lost on evidence. Landlords must be able to prove a genuine, funded and deliverable redevelopment scheme that requires possession.  The works themselves should commence within a reasonable time, which is now defined.  Tenants should rigorously test the reality of the proposed works, the landlord’s intention and whether possession is truly necessary.

For both landlords and tenants, early strategic advice and careful evidence gathering remain critical to the outcome of any contested lease renewal under the 1954 Act.