[Aturmercy]

Now I know that you have to serve a 146 notice before exercise of forfeiture. My question is: if it is a positive covenant or a Glass v Kencakes situation, and the 146 notice requires remedy and it is remedied by the tenant, does that mean the right of forfeiture cannot be enforced and the lease must continue?

[suffocation1992]

(Original post by Aturmercy)
Now I know that you have to serve a 146 notice before exercise of forfeiture. My question is: if it is a positive covenant or a Glass v Kencakes situation, and the 146 notice requires remedy and it is remedied by the tenant, does that mean the right of forfeiture cannot be enforced and the lease must continue?

Correct, because the Section 146 procedural notice is a check (along with waiver and relief) on the potentially draconian nature of the doctrine of forfeiture Section 146 gives the tenant a chance to remedy his breach, and if it is incapable of remedy then paying compensation to the landlord.

Note that if the positive covenant was to pay rent and the tenant has not done that, Section 146 will not apply - the landlord simply has to formally demand rent from the tenant, and non-compliance means that he can forfeit the lease by exercising a right of re-entry through an order of the court (Protection from Eviction Act).

[Aturmercy]

Thank you