Paterson v Aggio and another
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; 284(6357) 24 October 1987, 508-511(2)Publication details: 1987Subject(s): Summary: CA 31 July 1987. Appeal by tenants (A) against cc decision granting an order for possession to the landlord (P) of a house let to A. Possession was granted on the basis that the tenancy was a shorthold tenancy under the Housing Act 1980 s52 . A contended that their tenancy was not within the provision of s52 and that they were accordingly entitled to the protection of the Rent Act 1977 . At issue were the terms of the tenancy agreement, which contained the usual proviso for re-entry or forfeiture for non-payment of rent or breach of any other obligation of the tenancy. The agreement contained a stipulation " or if the tenant... shall become bankrupt or enter into any composition with his creditors or if the premises should be left vacant or unoccupied for more than 21 days". A contended that this did not comply with s52, submitting that there was no "obligation" (as required by law) in the agreement not to become bankrupt; instead of imposing an obligation the clause merely referred| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS38300 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 9861-1001 |
CA 31 July 1987. Appeal by tenants (A) against cc decision granting an order for possession to the landlord (P) of a house let to A. Possession was granted on the basis that the tenancy was a shorthold tenancy under the Housing Act 1980 s52 . A contended that their tenancy was not within the provision of s52 and that they were accordingly entitled to the protection of the Rent Act 1977 . At issue were the terms of the tenancy agreement, which contained the usual proviso for re-entry or forfeiture for non-payment of rent or breach of any other obligation of the tenancy. The agreement contained a stipulation " or if the tenant... shall become bankrupt or enter into any composition with his creditors or if the premises should be left vacant or unoccupied for more than 21 days". A contended that this did not comply with s52, submitting that there was no "obligation" (as required by law) in the agreement not to become bankrupt; instead of imposing an obligation the clause merely referred