City of London Corporation v Fell and others
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1992) 02 EG 172-176(4)Publication details: 1992Subject(s): Summary: The defendants (F) acquired a 10-year lease, assigning it to Grove Bell after three. However, the assignees continued in occupation after the original expiry date, but claimed a continuation under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s12. Grove Bell was wound up within the year leaving rent unpaid. The plaintiff landlord (C) applied to F, as lessee, for reparation. F retorted that its covenant did not provide for payments under any continuation of the tenancy under the 1954 Act. "Held" that the assignee had not remained in occupation after expiration of the contractual term, and that F was not responsible for the missing rent.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS45746 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 54875-1001 |
The defendants (F) acquired a 10-year lease, assigning it to Grove Bell after three. However, the assignees continued in occupation after the original expiry date, but claimed a continuation under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s12. Grove Bell was wound up within the year leaving rent unpaid. The plaintiff landlord (C) applied to F, as lessee, for reparation. F retorted that its covenant did not provide for payments under any continuation of the tenancy under the 1954 Act. "Held" that the assignee had not remained in occupation after expiration of the contractual term, and that F was not responsible for the missing rent.