Visual Artist

Tenancy Agreement Head Lease

Instead, franchisors will typically purchase leases at the first sites of their land and eventually sublet them to new franchisees. If the landlord does not want to take responsibility for the subletting and requires a full rebate with free possession, the tenant must agree to the rebate of each subtenant. Therefore, it is important for the tenant to speak to each of the subtenants before agreeing on the terms of a rebate with the landlord and notifying the landlord at an early stage of his intention to determine if a rebate is feasible. Instead of reducing these soft incentives for renting and leasing, some franchisors can use the existing business agreements they have with the owners and retain those benefits themselves. Franchisors tend to prefer the head-leaseback model to protect and preserve their reputation. The time it takes to find another tenant then condenses, since the franchisor and the lessor have to reach an agreement. In European Style Bldgs. Ltd. v. 191 St.

George Street Ltd., a case decided by the Ontario District Court in June 1987, the owner leased a 100-unit apartment building to a business owner who, in turn, leased rental units to subtenants residing in the rental units. The judge took note of the Matlavik case, but found that the case in question was different from That of Matlavik and that the relationship between the lessor and the principal tenant was a commercial lease for the purposes of the LTA. You may even have difficulty renewing your lease if the administrator intends to close the store. In Port Sarnia Property Professionals v. Gateway Property Management Corp., a case decided by ORHT on March 15, 2006, ORHT had another opportunity to examine the applicability of TPA to the relationship between the landlord and the principal tenant. In determining this issue, the ORHT took into account the definitions in the TPA, among others, of “tenants” and “rent” of which the latter was defined as “the amount of any consideration paid or given or given or necessary, or given to a lessor on behalf of a tenant … for the right to occupy a rental unit… ». The ORHT ultimately concluded that the principal tenant did not meet the definition of “tenant” because he did not pay rent to occupy the rental units, but paid rent to have the right to rent the rental units to other people.