Lees v Tatchell and another
Lees v Tatchell and another
- 1990
- Estates Gazette (1990) 23 EG 62-66(3) .
CA 1 February 1990. T was tenant under a tenancy agreement dated 24 May 1957, terminable on 12 calendar months notice in writing, expiring at the end of any year of the tenancy. The premises consisted of an agricultural holding entitled to protection under successive Agricultural Holdings Acts. In 1987 T died and the appellants are his executors. Both T`s agent and the landlord (L) were aware of T`s death within days and attended his funeral. A rent demand was addressed to the executors and paid by personal cheque on one of their accounts and received on 7 April. A notice to quit was issued on 1 July 1987 but not served until 1 August under Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 sched 3 . On the grounds that it was issued within three months of T`s death at which time relevant notice should have been given to L. In this case, although L was aware of T`s death, no formal notice was sent to him as required under legislation. The question arose as to whether return of the rent demand to L const
CASE LAW
CA 1 February 1990. T was tenant under a tenancy agreement dated 24 May 1957, terminable on 12 calendar months notice in writing, expiring at the end of any year of the tenancy. The premises consisted of an agricultural holding entitled to protection under successive Agricultural Holdings Acts. In 1987 T died and the appellants are his executors. Both T`s agent and the landlord (L) were aware of T`s death within days and attended his funeral. A rent demand was addressed to the executors and paid by personal cheque on one of their accounts and received on 7 April. A notice to quit was issued on 1 July 1987 but not served until 1 August under Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 sched 3 . On the grounds that it was issued within three months of T`s death at which time relevant notice should have been given to L. In this case, although L was aware of T`s death, no formal notice was sent to him as required under legislation. The question arose as to whether return of the rent demand to L const
CASE LAW