Hazel v Akhtar and another
Series: Estates Gazette ; [2002] 07 EG 124-130(7)Publication details: 2002Subject(s): Summary: CA 12 December 2001. Appellant tenant H appealed against CC decision refusing to grant him a business tenancy on the grounds that he had been persistently late in paying his rent and had been in breach of his repairing obligations. On expiry of H's lease in July 2002, landlord A served a s25 notice opposing the granting of a new lease under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s30(1)(a) and (b). CA noted that the CC judge had omitted to take into account that the late payment of rent had been acceptable to the previous landlord and that the present landlords at is assignees were estopped from insisting that H should revert to strict compliance of the rent unless reasonable notice had been give to H to that effect. H's appeal allowed. New tenancy granted.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS65163 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 116968-1001 |
CA 12 December 2001. Appellant tenant H appealed against CC decision refusing to grant him a business tenancy on the grounds that he had been persistently late in paying his rent and had been in breach of his repairing obligations. On expiry of H's lease in July 2002, landlord A served a s25 notice opposing the granting of a new lease under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s30(1)(a) and (b). CA noted that the CC judge had omitted to take into account that the late payment of rent had been acceptable to the previous landlord and that the present landlords at is assignees were estopped from insisting that H should revert to strict compliance of the rent unless reasonable notice had been give to H to that effect. H's appeal allowed. New tenancy granted.