Image from Google Jackets

Ghelani v Bowie and others

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (8842) 22 October 1988, 119-120(2)Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: CA 18 March 1988. Appeal by landlord (G) from cc decision dismissing claim for possession of a dwelling-house, occupied by five trainee surveyors (B). The house had been let on a regulated tenancy for 11 months jointly from 23 August 1986, terminable by four weeks notice on either side. The rent was originally £180pw; this was later reduced to £85pw by the rent officer and rent assessment committee. Notice to quit was dated 12 December 1986, less than four months after the start of the 11 month term. Cc heard conflicting evidence as to G`s stated intentions at the commencement of the tenancy. G claimed to have said that she intended to go to India for medical treatment, a visit anticipated to last for some months, but that on her return she would wish to resume possession of the premises. B contended that G had given no indication of requiring repossession, and had even suggested that the tenancy might be renewable. Cc found that 1) G had failed to satisfy the burden of proof that sh
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS39997 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 20533-1001

CA 18 March 1988. Appeal by landlord (G) from cc decision dismissing claim for possession of a dwelling-house, occupied by five trainee surveyors (B). The house had been let on a regulated tenancy for 11 months jointly from 23 August 1986, terminable by four weeks notice on either side. The rent was originally £180pw; this was later reduced to £85pw by the rent officer and rent assessment committee. Notice to quit was dated 12 December 1986, less than four months after the start of the 11 month term. Cc heard conflicting evidence as to G`s stated intentions at the commencement of the tenancy. G claimed to have said that she intended to go to India for medical treatment, a visit anticipated to last for some months, but that on her return she would wish to resume possession of the premises. B contended that G had given no indication of requiring repossession, and had even suggested that the tenancy might be renewable. Cc found that 1) G had failed to satisfy the burden of proof that sh