Meet Alice. Alice lets a house to Bob on a 6 month contract who then sublets it to Charles on a 12 month contract. Alice serves notice to the property addressed to Bob at the end of their term, which Charles ignores as it is not addressed to him. She then obtains a possession order and then warrant. Bob unaware of all of this never informs Charles of any of it, but Bob's tenancy has been lawfully ended. Before he knows it bailiffs are showing up at Charles's door yet Charles has not been given any notice at all to leave.
It is commonly advised that the general rule is that when a mesne tenancy ends, any subtenancy of it too immediately ends which would mean that in the first scenario while Charles has protection from any unlawful eviction by Bob rooted in both common law and the human rights act, he is not fundamentally/comprehensively protected and that the possessor's ( Alice's) right to obtain possession trumps Charles's rights as a tenant to occupy and to receive notice. Why are his human rights suddenly inferior? It may be noted that in sightly different scenarios, the rules appear to be different. For example if he was subletting unlawfully and the effluxion of time transpires then he may become a trespasser, though if Bob had offered a surrender to Alice, then Charles would seem to automatically become Alice's direct lawful tenant with the correspondent protections.
Now meet Adam. Adam lets a house to Barbara and then signs a contract to sell it to Carroll empty. Barbara has nothing to worry about as she is in a tenancy contract guaranteeing her right to occupy which takes precedence over Carroll's entitlement to buy the place empty. In this case tenant's occupancy rights appear to reign supreme, so it is tough stuff for Carroll, and perhaps even tougher stuff for Adam who will fail to fulfill his contract and probably become in breach.
What is the rule of law that dictates these two differing orders of precedence and outcomes?
