Ravenseft Properties Ltd v Park and another
Ravenseft Properties Ltd v Park and another
- 1988
- Estates Gazette (8850) 17 December 1988, 52-56(3) .
ChD 28 July 1988. Tenants (R) sought a declaration that upon the true construction of the lease, the increased rent is to be determined upon the assumption that the property is a parcel of land without any buildings erected thereon. R also owned land adjoining the relevant site. The defendants (P) were the landlords. The two plots of land originally consisted of four shops. the leased property being numbers 69 and 71 and the owned property 65 and 67. The two owners conceived a scheme in 1963 to replace all four shops with a supermarket . P entered into agreement with the then owners of the site (M) by which they were seised in fee simple of the shop premises no 69 and 71 and R was similarly seised for the other two. P also granted R a building lease for 36 months. In three years the building was completed and a lease granted by which R were the tenants. The first rent review was due in December 1986. Disagreement arose. It is generally accepted that the arbiter has to review the prem
ChD 28 July 1988. Tenants (R) sought a declaration that upon the true construction of the lease, the increased rent is to be determined upon the assumption that the property is a parcel of land without any buildings erected thereon. R also owned land adjoining the relevant site. The defendants (P) were the landlords. The two plots of land originally consisted of four shops. the leased property being numbers 69 and 71 and the owned property 65 and 67. The two owners conceived a scheme in 1963 to replace all four shops with a supermarket . P entered into agreement with the then owners of the site (M) by which they were seised in fee simple of the shop premises no 69 and 71 and R was similarly seised for the other two. P also granted R a building lease for 36 months. In three years the building was completed and a lease granted by which R were the tenants. The first rent review was due in December 1986. Disagreement arose. It is generally accepted that the arbiter has to review the prem