Miah v Bromley Park Garden Estates Ltd
Miah v Bromley Park Garden Estates Ltd
- 1992
- Estates Gazette 1992 10 EG 91-95(4) .
CA 16 October 1991. Appeal by tenant (M) against a CC decision relating to an application for a new tenancy under Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Part II. M had occupied the premises for use as an Indian takeaway and residential accommodation for fifteen years from 1975 to 1990. Following service by respondent landlord (B) of a notice under s25 of the 1954 Act, M made an application for a new tenancy. The county court registrar gave directions for the hearing of the application to be heard on 5 December 1990. M appeared at the hearing without legal representation or a valuation expert. M`s two requests for adjournment were refused. Cc judge proceeded to determine rent on the basis of valuation evidence given by B`s expert. M contested the decision on the grounds that he had wrongly exercised his discretion in refusing applications for adjournment and had misdirected himself in allowing the hearing to proceed when it had been apparent that M was not able to represent himself. Held that t
BUSINESS TENANCIES
LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1954 PART II
NEW TENANCIES
CA 16 October 1991. Appeal by tenant (M) against a CC decision relating to an application for a new tenancy under Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Part II. M had occupied the premises for use as an Indian takeaway and residential accommodation for fifteen years from 1975 to 1990. Following service by respondent landlord (B) of a notice under s25 of the 1954 Act, M made an application for a new tenancy. The county court registrar gave directions for the hearing of the application to be heard on 5 December 1990. M appeared at the hearing without legal representation or a valuation expert. M`s two requests for adjournment were refused. Cc judge proceeded to determine rent on the basis of valuation evidence given by B`s expert. M contested the decision on the grounds that he had wrongly exercised his discretion in refusing applications for adjournment and had misdirected himself in allowing the hearing to proceed when it had been apparent that M was not able to represent himself. Held that t
BUSINESS TENANCIES
LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1954 PART II
NEW TENANCIES