Image from Google Jackets

Adagio Properties Ltd v Ansari

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; [1998] 35 EG 86-89(4) (29 August 1998)Publication details: 1998Subject(s): Summary: "Adagio Properties Ltd v Ansari" CA 22 January 1998. By an underlease dated 24 May 1960 the respondent tenant held the remainder of a 90-year term of a flat. The underlease was subject to covenants that permitted the appellant landlord to enter and inspect the premises and prohibited certain alterations without the landlord`s written consent. In 1992 a request by the landlord`s gents to inspect the premises was denied. A visit, peering the windows, revealed that alterations had been carried out to flat contrary to the covenants. The tenant had divided the flat into two separate dwellings. The landlord served a notice under the Law of Property Act 1925 s146 alleging that the flat had been divided without consent. The county court judge held that the landlord`s notice was invalid for uncertainty. The landlord appealed. Held: Appeal was allowed. The notice did comply with requirements of s146 of the Act.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS59325 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 88568-1001

"Adagio Properties Ltd v Ansari" CA 22 January 1998. By an underlease dated 24 May 1960 the respondent tenant held the remainder of a 90-year term of a flat. The underlease was subject to covenants that permitted the appellant landlord to enter and inspect the premises and prohibited certain alterations without the landlord`s written consent. In 1992 a request by the landlord`s gents to inspect the premises was denied. A visit, peering the windows, revealed that alterations had been carried out to flat contrary to the covenants. The tenant had divided the flat into two separate dwellings. The landlord served a notice under the Law of Property Act 1925 s146 alleging that the flat had been divided without consent. The county court judge held that the landlord`s notice was invalid for uncertainty. The landlord appealed. Held: Appeal was allowed. The notice did comply with requirements of s146 of the Act.