CA 1 November 1991. Prior to the agreement in question N owned land which he wished to develop. The highway authority contemplated widening the road and accordingly on 19 December 1930 acquired part of N`s land consisting of the frontage. On 30 December they leased it back to N together with a right to put up a temporary building which he could occupy until the authority needed the land. The new permanent building he wished to erect would have its frontage on the widened road. This was therefore a sale and leaseback agreement. The interest in the land became vested in the plaintiff and in 1975 they sublet the premises to LEB. The defendants were the successors to the original highway authority but were not themselves responsible for highways. However it was held that they could deal with reversion on the footing that the interest created by the memorandum of agreement was terminable. Prior to selling the land the authority served a notice under Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s25 determ