CA 21 June 1989. The property was a national distribution centre for spare parts for cars comprising 5 acres with warehouse and other buildings. In 1973 T were granted two underleases by J, the then lessors, the combined effect of which was a term of 50years. The leases were identical to avoid a higher rate of stamp duty , as a lease over 35 years was rated at 6% as opposed to 1%. Rent reviews were set at five yearly intervals, to be either the maximum yearly rent in the preceding year or open market value whichever is the higher. A problem arose at the third rent review in 1988 when one year remained on the first lease. T contended it should be valued as such, the landlord L claimed that the second lease, which had 35 years to run, should be taken into account. It was held in favour of J; L appealed. Appeal allowed. The only reason for having two leases was to avoid stamp duty; there had never been any intention of ending the tenancy.