Right to occupy
Language: English Series: Times ; 26/10/89 p42Publication details: 1989Subject(s): Summary: In Meyer v Riddick and Others CA 24 October 1989 it was held that where a landlord whose interest was held on trust , refused to grant a new tenancy on the ground that he intended to occupy the premises himself for business purposes, it was necessary that the occupation arose directly from his interest under the trust.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| News article | London News article | WB2542-19 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 71275-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: News article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
| No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | ||
| WB2542-16 Institutional investment | WB2542-17 Severn barrage study | WB2542-18 Housing market report | WB2542-19 Right to occupy | WB2542-20 Who takes on GLC`s liabilities? | WB2542-21 Open space policy urged | WB2542-22 New restrictions on TV dishes |
In Meyer v Riddick and Others CA 24 October 1989 it was held that where a landlord whose interest was held on trust , refused to grant a new tenancy on the ground that he intended to occupy the premises himself for business purposes, it was necessary that the occupation arose directly from his interest under the trust.