A couple who wanted to turf out their tenant were instead forced to give him cheap rent for life because of little known laws dating back 92 years.

David and Sheila Harding bought their friend and next door neighbour Colin Gregory's three-bedroom home nearly 20 years ago.

Mr Gregory was struggling with the mortgage, and Mr Harding rented the home back to the former antiques dealer for £800 a month.

But decades later, when the couple wanted to sell up to fund their new life in Spain, he refused to leave.

David and Sheila Harding bought their neighbour's three-bedroom home nearly 20 years ago

Colin Gregory previously owned the house which the Hardings bought from him after he told them he was struggling with his mortgage. He continued to live there and rented it from them

The Hardings took him to the county court to get possession of the £310,000 home in Peacehaven, East Sussex.

But they were astonished when Mr Gregory's lawyer successfully used a law dating from 1925.

Moreover, the judge ordered Mr Gregory to be given a 90-year lease – and the Hardings cannot increase the rent above the current £800 a month.

The pair were refused permission to appeal and fear the lease could even be passed on to his relatives when he dies.

They rented the home back to their friend Colin Gregory for £800 a month but the trouble started when they wanted to sell the house to fund their new life in Spain

The judge branded both parties 'foolhardy in the extreme'.

Now Mr Harding, 58, is speaking out to warn others of letting properties to friends.

So, what is the 92-year-old law that was used? Mr Gregory's solicitor produced two pieces of law - dating from 1925 and 1948 - which the judge adjourned the hearing to consider. He cited a case known as Bannister v Bannister 1948, where a woman was given the right to live rent free for life in a cottage she sold to her brother for under market value. The judge decided the cases were similar, and he was given £800 a month rent 'for life' - which due to the 1925 Property Act equates to 90 years. The judge dismissed the Hardings' case and ordered them to pay his costs of £11,000. The Hardings are allowed to sell the home - but only on the condition it goes to someone who will keep Mr Gregory as a cut-price tenant. Advertisement

The grandfather-of-two said: 'We tried to help out, not only as a good neighbour and landlord, but we considered Colin a good friend.

'We own it, we pay the mortgage on it, we bought it but due to a nearly 100-year-old law he gets to live in it on the cheap. We have nowhere to turn to and can't believe it has turned out like this.

'We went into court told by our solicitors that there would be no problem and walked out with him winning the case and us owing him costs. It's ludicrous. There is nothing more we can do.

'We want to warn other people who are thinking of entering into any kind of agreement like this. We did everything by the book and look where it ended up.

'Nobody had ever heard of the law the solicitor used but it has cost us dearly. We're stuffed.'

The Hardings moved into Broomfield Avenue, next door to Mr Gregory, in 1993 and got on well.

They were so close that when Mr Gregory confessed he was struggling to pay his mortgage and was going to have to sell up and move out, Mr Harding offered to help.

He bought the home for £143,000 in 2001 and used a 'buy to rent' mortgage, meaning Mr Gregory did not have to move out, and he happily paid them £800 a month.

A tenancy agreement was signed by all parties. Mr Harding, a former roofing company owner, recalled: 'I told him he could stay there for as long as feasibly possible and that as long as I could afford it, I would keep the rent at £800.'

The couple sold their home and moved to Spain in 2002 but decided to sell the other house three years ago.

They needed some cash to fund their new three-bedroom villa in Torremolinos and explained the situation to Mr Gregory. Mr Harding offered to sell the home to Mr Gregory for £60,000 less than the £310,000 valuation.

The Hardings took him to the county court to get possession of the £310,000 home in Peacehaven, East Sussex but a little known law meant that they must now give him cheap rent

They gave him a year to find the money but he did not and they then accepted an offer from a buyer who was willing to pay about £240,000 for the home and keep Mr Gregory, 68, as a tenant.

But the buyer said he needed £1,200 a month rent and Mr Gregory objected to the rise.

The case went to Brighton County Court in March 2016 where Mr Gregory said he sold the house to the Hardings for a reduced price, only because he could rent it for as long as he wanted.

That claim, not mentioned in the tenancy agreement, was strongly disputed by the Hardings.

Then Mr Gregory's solicitor produced two pieces of law, dating from 1925 and 1948.

Under the 1925 Property Act he has the right to pay £800 for the next 90 years.

He also cited Bannister v Bannister from 1948, where a woman was given the right to live rent-free for life in a cottage she sold to her brother for under market value.

The Hardings were ordered to pay Mr Gregory's costs of £11,000 and told they can only sell the home to someone who will keep him as a cut-price tenant. Mr Gregory declined to comment.