Smith and others v Titanate Ltd
Smith and others v Titanate Ltd
- 2005
- Estates Gazette [2005] 20 EG 262-270(9) .
Central London County Court, 18 January 2005. Considers whether the claimant landlords (S) should receive declaratory relief from the defendant company's (T) notice to acquire the freehold of the building, of which T was the sole tenant. T used the building for the business of letting out its six constituent furnished and serviced flats. T served notice on S under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 as amended by the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 to acquire the freehold. S resisted the claim on the grounds that M held a tenancy within the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Part II, which invoked a residence condition that T could not satisfy and therefore it could not enfranchise. T contended that it did not occupy the premises for the purposes of a business within the meaning of the 1954 Act s23. "Held": claim dismissed. T was not in occupation for the purposes of a business within the meaning of s23 of the Act. The lettings of the flats were tenancies and T did not have sufficient control over the flats as to be in occupation of them within s23 of the Act.
SMITH AND OTHERS V TITANATE LTD
LEASEHOLD REFORM ACT 1967
COMMONHOLD AND LEASEHOLD REFORM ACT 2002
LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1954 PART II
Central London County Court, 18 January 2005. Considers whether the claimant landlords (S) should receive declaratory relief from the defendant company's (T) notice to acquire the freehold of the building, of which T was the sole tenant. T used the building for the business of letting out its six constituent furnished and serviced flats. T served notice on S under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 as amended by the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 to acquire the freehold. S resisted the claim on the grounds that M held a tenancy within the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Part II, which invoked a residence condition that T could not satisfy and therefore it could not enfranchise. T contended that it did not occupy the premises for the purposes of a business within the meaning of the 1954 Act s23. "Held": claim dismissed. T was not in occupation for the purposes of a business within the meaning of s23 of the Act. The lettings of the flats were tenancies and T did not have sufficient control over the flats as to be in occupation of them within s23 of the Act.
SMITH AND OTHERS V TITANATE LTD
LEASEHOLD REFORM ACT 1967
COMMONHOLD AND LEASEHOLD REFORM ACT 2002
LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1954 PART II