Leases are not just pieces of paper and wise tenants always seek legal advice so that they really understand what they are signing up to. In one case which strikingly made that point, a long leaseholder ended up in danger of losing his property after his installation of a new boiler involved cutting through an exterior wall.

The flat tenant’s 99-year lease included a covenant which, amongst other things, forbade him from cutting, maiming, altering or injuring any of the property’s principal walls without his landlord’s consent.

In a landmark ruling on 15 June 2016, the Supreme Court ruled that an Article 8 defence is not available to tenants to defend possession claims under assured shorthold tenancies.

Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights provides that everyone has the right to respect for his home. There has been some doubt as to whether tenants can use Article 8 to defend claims for possession made under Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988.

The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has held that a tenant breached a covenant in their long lease of a flat that prohibited use of the flat for any purpose whatsoever other than as a private residence.

In a decision that will be required reading for property landlords, the Court of Appeal has confirmed the validity of a form of assured shorthold tenancy that has been in common use for many years. At the same time, the Court defined the concept of ‘ownership’ in the context of Council Tax liabilities.

Almshouses have for centuries offered sanctuary to the poor and vulnerable but the legal status of those who occupy them has always been in doubt – until now. In opening the way for a woman’s eviction from an almshouse, the Court of Appeal conclusively found that she was a licensee, not a tenant.

The woman had occupied the almshouse for over 10 years, having been appointed as a beneficiary of the charity that owned it, and was required to pay weekly rent and maintenance charges.

Residential leases usually contain detailed procedures that must be followed before valid demands for service charges can be raised. Some landlords sidestep such requirements for reasons of convenience, but an Upper Tribunal (UT) decision has underlined the hazards inherent in such a course.

The case concerned a prestigious block of 56 flats, the common parts of which were owned by a services company. The tenants of 11 of those flats had refused to pay service charges due to various concerns about the property’s management.

In a ruling that will be required reading for landlords and tenants, the Court of Appeal has given authoritative guidance on the distinction between ‘repairs’ and ‘optional improvements’.

The decision means that tenants’ views will in future be far more influential when it comes to paying for the costs of the latter.

In an important decision for owners of student accommodation or houses in multiple occupation (HMOs), the Court of Appeal has ruled that a licensing condition that restricted occupation of two small attic bedrooms to full-time students was lawful.

The rooms were both located in semi-detached houses owned by the same landlord. The local authority took the view that, due to their sloping ceilings, their usable floor areas fell below its benchmark figure of eight square metres.

It is a common misapprehension that there is little practical difference between long leasehold and freehold interests in land. In one case that proved how wrong that is, an elderly widow who ran a bed and breakfast business from her £2.8 million flat in breach of her lease was given six months to leave her home of 40 years.

The law protects tenants against mistreatment and landlords who ignore their tenants’ rights are courting disaster.

In one case that strikingly proved the point, a landlord who unlawfully entered his tenant’s bedsit and threw out his possessions ended up being sued for more than £900,000 in compensation.