Rent Acts
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette Case Summaries ; 1992 EGCS 45(2) (4/4/92)Publication details: 1992Subject(s): Summary: "Ridehalgh v Horsefield and another" CA 26 March 1992. The defendants who had been tenants for over three years disputed a notice to quit and a summons for possession. At first instance the question was whether a shorthold notice had been served. On appeal, the tenants contention that proceedings for possession had to be commenced not later than three months after expiry of the notice, was upheld.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | WB2815-33 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 73239-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal 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 | ||
| WB2814-43 Planning permission in green belt | WB2814-44 Retaining open spaces | WB2814-49 Tax exemption | WB2815-33 Rent Acts | WB2815-40 Enforcement notice | WB2815-41 Planning permission | WB2815-48 Roll-over relief |
"Ridehalgh v Horsefield and another" CA 26 March 1992. The defendants who had been tenants for over three years disputed a notice to quit and a summons for possession. At first instance the question was whether a shorthold notice had been served. On appeal, the tenants contention that proceedings for possession had to be commenced not later than three months after expiry of the notice, was upheld.