Rent acts
Language: English Series: EGCS ; 1989 37Publication details: 1989Subject(s): Summary: In Pittalis v Grant , CA 10 March 1989, it was held that the subtenancy did not qualify for protection under Rent Act 1977 s137 . The property was held under a headlease, a lease of business premises for the purposes of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 . It follows that the property was not to be treated as a dwelling house .| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| News article | London News article | WB2512-41 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 31969-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: News article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
| No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | ||
| WB2512-38 Amendments to Housing Act forms | WB2512-39 Benefit of surety covenant in lease | WB2512-40 Rent Act 1977 | WB2512-41 Rent acts | WB2512-42 Rent review | WB2512-43 Separate licenses did not create joint tenancy | WB2512-44 Modern coal mining |
In Pittalis v Grant , CA 10 March 1989, it was held that the subtenancy did not qualify for protection under Rent Act 1977 s137 . The property was held under a headlease, a lease of business premises for the purposes of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 . It follows that the property was not to be treated as a dwelling house .