ChD 19 December 1988 These were two actions begun by originating summons as a result of a dispute concerning the status of the council`s tenancy . The council (HF) sought a declaration against the defendants, successors in title of a freehold property that HF was the tenant of part of the property on the same terms contained in two underleases of 1970, made between (P), a development company, and HF for the residue of P`s lease , less ten days, or, a relief from forfeiture under Law of Property Act 1925 s146(4) . The action arose as a result of the forfeiture of P`s headlease and the defendants` assertion that the council`s underleases no longer subsisted - its tenancy being on a year-to-year basis, which could be terminated by giving six months notice. ChD held that the interests which derived from the original lease would not automatically be reinstated if the court vested a new lease in an underlessee, as those interests might not fit into the provisions of the new lease ordered b