Does not benefit from the legislation on

Practical application:

Under this case law, if a tenant’s custom predominantly comes from the landlord’s own business, the commercial lease statute (right to renewal, eviction indemnity) may not apply. The tenant should urgently collect evidence of independent clientele—e.g., loyalty cards, surveys showing customers visit specifically for the cheese, or separate marketing efforts. If such evidence is weak, negotiate a departure date and compensation, as court protection is unlikely. Seek legal advice on gathering proof before any formal notice is served.

Practical application:

Relying on this precedent, the landlord can argue that the sushi stand lacks an autonomous clientele and therefore falls outside commercial lease protection, meaning no right to renewal and no eviction indemnity. The landlord should document how the stand’s sales correlate with the supermarket’s traffic, its lack of street frontage, and any marketing dependency. A formal notice of termination should still be given, but the landlord can take the matter to court seeking a declaration that the commercial lease statute is inapplicable, significantly reducing financial exposure.

Practical application:

This case law clarifies that a stall’s statutory protection hinges on its own clientele. The investor must investigate whether the florist’s customers are mainly gallery visitors drawn by an anchor store. Review the lease, check for independent entrance or signage, and analyse turnover sources. If the florist’s business is dependent, the lease likely enjoys no automatic renewal right, making eviction smoother and cheaper. Commission a legal due‑diligence report to confirm this before completing the purchase, as it directly affects the asset’s flexibility and value.