Denetower Ltd v Troop and others
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1991) 20 EG 194-200(4)Publication details: 1991Subject(s): Summary: CA 26 March 1991. The property consisted of two two-storey buildings each containing four flats , each with a separate garden . The tenants held long leases to the flats and relevant gardens. The defendant (D) acquired the property in 1988 however the original landlord did not offer the reversion to the tenants as laid down under Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 s12 . The tenants therefore served notice on D. D applied to the county court to have it declared that either none of the tenants were qualifying tenants under Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 s3 , or that their notice was invalid, or that only the buildings were involved and not the gardens. The judge held in favour of D on the first point but as a point of law held against them in the second two cases. The tenants appealed. CA held that although s3 of the Act declared that a person was not a qualifying tenant if the tenancy included `the flat and any common parts of the building` (although this was later amended by Housing Act 1988| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS44698 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 48594-1001 |
CA 26 March 1991. The property consisted of two two-storey buildings each containing four flats , each with a separate garden . The tenants held long leases to the flats and relevant gardens. The defendant (D) acquired the property in 1988 however the original landlord did not offer the reversion to the tenants as laid down under Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 s12 . The tenants therefore served notice on D. D applied to the county court to have it declared that either none of the tenants were qualifying tenants under Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 s3 , or that their notice was invalid, or that only the buildings were involved and not the gardens. The judge held in favour of D on the first point but as a point of law held against them in the second two cases. The tenants appealed. CA held that although s3 of the Act declared that a person was not a qualifying tenant if the tenancy included `the flat and any common parts of the building` (although this was later amended by Housing Act 1988