Yeoman's Row Management Ltd v Bodentien-Meyrick
Series: Estates Gazette ; [2002] 34 EG 84-86(3)Publication details: 2002Subject(s): Summary: CA 30 May 2002. Appellant landlord (Y) was the owner of a flat let under a statutory tenancy to the respondent tenant (B). The tenancy agreement allowed for Y's entry to carry out repairs to the inside or the outside of the flat. Y used this to attempt to enter the flat and carry out works and recover possession for a temporary period. CC decided this right of entry was restricted to entry to the property for repairs or other works that the tenant was obliged but failed to do. Y appealed but this was dismissed as it was decided that Y was not allowed to enter to carry out improvements. The entry clause had to be consistent here with the covenant for quite enjoyment.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS65854 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 119592-1001 |
CA 30 May 2002. Appellant landlord (Y) was the owner of a flat let under a statutory tenancy to the respondent tenant (B). The tenancy agreement allowed for Y's entry to carry out repairs to the inside or the outside of the flat. Y used this to attempt to enter the flat and carry out works and recover possession for a temporary period. CC decided this right of entry was restricted to entry to the property for repairs or other works that the tenant was obliged but failed to do. Y appealed but this was dismissed as it was decided that Y was not allowed to enter to carry out improvements. The entry clause had to be consistent here with the covenant for quite enjoyment.