ChD 2 November 1988. A number of summonses involved freeholders of an office building (B), sublessors of the building (U) and sublesses of the second floor (S). S received a section 25 notice from U and replied within the correct time limit, stating they were not willing to give up possession. S made an application to the court seeking a new tenancy , naming their immediate landlords as U. Unknown to S, U had served a request for a new tenancy on B. Consequently the role of the competent landlord had passed to B at the date of S`s originating summons. The point at issue, therefore, was whether S had brought proceedings against the correct landlord. Held that B was the landlord. U ceased to be the landlord when it served notice requesting a new tenancy. The judge also rejected a suggestion that exercise of an option to renew extended U`s tenancy. S might have learnt the identity of the competent landlord had they served a notice under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s40(2) . The seco