Ashton and Others v Sobelman
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; 281 (6318) 24 January 1987, 303-309 (5)Publication details: 1987Subject(s): Summary: ChD 29 April 1986. At issue was whether a lease had been forfeited by peaceable re-entry , and if so, whether relief against forfeiture should be granted to the tenants. The plaintiffs were entitled under a will to the leasehold interest of a lock-up shop and flat . The lease was granted for 80 years from 1932 at £50 pa, with a proviso for re-entry for non-payment of rent. By 19 October 1984, the rent was in arrears and the landlords took steps to forfeit the lease and put the property up for auction . At the same time, the premises were subject to a 10 year sub-tenancy. The landlords wrote to the subtenant of their intention to forfeit the 1932 lease by peaceably re-entering the premises, with the subtenants consent, and to re-take possession by changing the locks, and requesting the subtenant to pay rent to them. The subtenants right to remain was not being challenged, and he agreed to co-operate. The property was then sold and it was after this the plaintiffs discovered what had h| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS37310 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 3653-1001 |
ChD 29 April 1986. At issue was whether a lease had been forfeited by peaceable re-entry , and if so, whether relief against forfeiture should be granted to the tenants. The plaintiffs were entitled under a will to the leasehold interest of a lock-up shop and flat . The lease was granted for 80 years from 1932 at £50 pa, with a proviso for re-entry for non-payment of rent. By 19 October 1984, the rent was in arrears and the landlords took steps to forfeit the lease and put the property up for auction . At the same time, the premises were subject to a 10 year sub-tenancy. The landlords wrote to the subtenant of their intention to forfeit the 1932 lease by peaceably re-entering the premises, with the subtenants consent, and to re-take possession by changing the locks, and requesting the subtenant to pay rent to them. The subtenants right to remain was not being challenged, and he agreed to co-operate. The property was then sold and it was after this the plaintiffs discovered what had h