Dixon v Allgood
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; 281 (6317) 17 January 1987, 183-190 (4)Publication details: 1987Subject(s): Summary: CA 5 November 1986. An appeal by the landlord from a county court decision which favoured a claim by the tenant that he was entitled to enfranchise a house and premises under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 . The tenant had been granted a lease for 51 years from May 1964 at a yearly rent of £52, for the land in question, which originally contained two derelict cottages which were subsequently rebuilt with garages. Compulsory acquisition of part of the land took place, and the rent altered in accordance. In 1981, a notice was served on the landlord by the tenant that he wished to acquire the freehold of the land. The claim was resisted by the landlord for the following reasons; 1) the two cottages did not constitute a "house"; 2) the tenancy was not a long tenancy at a low rent; 3) the tenant was not entitled to claim the freehold of the whole acreage leased to him. The area to which the tenant was entitled was reduced, but the landlords submissions otherwise rejected. On appeal, the is| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS37314 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 3667-1001 |
CA 5 November 1986. An appeal by the landlord from a county court decision which favoured a claim by the tenant that he was entitled to enfranchise a house and premises under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 . The tenant had been granted a lease for 51 years from May 1964 at a yearly rent of £52, for the land in question, which originally contained two derelict cottages which were subsequently rebuilt with garages. Compulsory acquisition of part of the land took place, and the rent altered in accordance. In 1981, a notice was served on the landlord by the tenant that he wished to acquire the freehold of the land. The claim was resisted by the landlord for the following reasons; 1) the two cottages did not constitute a "house"; 2) the tenancy was not a long tenancy at a low rent; 3) the tenant was not entitled to claim the freehold of the whole acreage leased to him. The area to which the tenant was entitled was reduced, but the landlords submissions otherwise rejected. On appeal, the is