Defendant 1 contracted to give Defendant 2 a lease for 3 years and on a week-by week basis thereafter. The lease wasn’t registered.
Defendant 1 gave a mortgage on the property to Plaintiff, who claimed possession against Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 after Defendant 1 defaulted on payments.
CA held that Plaintiff could take possession.
Under LRA 1925, for a lease to be an overriding interest, it had to be “a lease ... for any term or interest not exceeding twenty-one years, granted at a rent”. “Granted” means the actual creation of a lease by an agreement for a set number of years / using a deed, etc., and does NOT include mere agreements with simply a contractual effect.
Therefore Defendant 2 had not shown that she had an interest that took priority.
Defendant 2 never got a lease but a mere contractual right to obtain a lease from Defendant 1.
Agreements to lease are not overriding interests in the way that actual leases are.
Here, a lease could have been created by deed and therefore this agreement could not have been a lease.