St Marylebone Property Co Ltd v Tesco Stores Ltd and Others
St Marylebone Property Co Ltd v Tesco Stores Ltd and Others
- 1988
- Estates Gazette (8827) 9 July 1988, 72-79(4) .
ChD 9 October 1987 An action for forfeiture of a lease relating to five lockup shop s brought by St Marylebone Property Co Ltd (M) against Tesco Stores Ltd (T) as first defendant and N. Patel (N) as second defendant. The lease contained a covenant restricting the use of the premises to that of "grocers provisions, wine, spirit and beer merchants". T underlet to N, the licence including the requirement that the underlease should contain similar covenants similar to those in the lease and a restriction against assignment without M`s consent. However, the underlease was assigned by N to J Patel without the consent or knowledge of M. J carried out structural alterations to the premises and extended the range of products sold to include stationary items and also incorporated a video library. M was unaware of this until it received complaints from other traders. On failure of J to discontinue these lines, M sought forfeiture against T which would terminate J`s underlease as well. T and J a
BUSINESS TENANCIES
ChD 9 October 1987 An action for forfeiture of a lease relating to five lockup shop s brought by St Marylebone Property Co Ltd (M) against Tesco Stores Ltd (T) as first defendant and N. Patel (N) as second defendant. The lease contained a covenant restricting the use of the premises to that of "grocers provisions, wine, spirit and beer merchants". T underlet to N, the licence including the requirement that the underlease should contain similar covenants similar to those in the lease and a restriction against assignment without M`s consent. However, the underlease was assigned by N to J Patel without the consent or knowledge of M. J carried out structural alterations to the premises and extended the range of products sold to include stationary items and also incorporated a video library. M was unaware of this until it received complaints from other traders. On failure of J to discontinue these lines, M sought forfeiture against T which would terminate J`s underlease as well. T and J a
BUSINESS TENANCIES