Van Haarlam and another v Kasner and another
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; 1992 36 EG 135-146(6)Publication details: 1992Subject(s): Summary: ChD 22 January 1992. Raises the question of whether a tenant is entitled to relief from forfeiture in relation to a breach of covenant not to use the premises (a flat) for illegal or immoral purposes. The plaintiff tenant (V) was granted a 99-year tenancy in 1985. The lease contained provisions for forfeiture and a covenant not to use the premises for immoral purposes. On 2 April 1988 V was arrested and charged under the Official Secrets Act. On 23 May 1988 defendant trustees K and assignees to the reversion of the flat allowed a demand for ground rent from 24 June 1988 to be sent to V. The ground rent was paid on V`s behalf by his solicitor. A second rent demand in November 1988 was paid in February 1989. On 8 December 1989 K sent notice to V alleging breach of covenant. On 21 December 1989 K re-entered the flat. Rent demands prepared in May and November 1989 were not sent to V. V argued that firstly the notice given on 8 December 1989 did not satisfy Law of Property Act 1925 s146,| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS47089 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 60777-1001 |
ChD 22 January 1992. Raises the question of whether a tenant is entitled to relief from forfeiture in relation to a breach of covenant not to use the premises (a flat) for illegal or immoral purposes. The plaintiff tenant (V) was granted a 99-year tenancy in 1985. The lease contained provisions for forfeiture and a covenant not to use the premises for immoral purposes. On 2 April 1988 V was arrested and charged under the Official Secrets Act. On 23 May 1988 defendant trustees K and assignees to the reversion of the flat allowed a demand for ground rent from 24 June 1988 to be sent to V. The ground rent was paid on V`s behalf by his solicitor. A second rent demand in November 1988 was paid in February 1989. On 8 December 1989 K sent notice to V alleging breach of covenant. On 21 December 1989 K re-entered the flat. Rent demands prepared in May and November 1989 were not sent to V. V argued that firstly the notice given on 8 December 1989 did not satisfy Law of Property Act 1925 s146,