Business tenancy determination
Series: Estates Gazette ; [2002] 14 EG 126 (CS) (6/4/2002)Publication details: 2002Subject(s): Summary: "Single Horse Properties Ltd v Surrey CC", CA 26 March 2002. Appellant tenant (X) under a 25 year lease, was served a counternotice by respondent landlord (Y) to terminate tenancy on expiry date of the 25-year term. X applied for a new tenancy pursuant to Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s26(1) but vacated the building before the expiry date of the existing tenancy. The landlord obtained an order to continue current tenancy with rent payable for three months from date of order. X's application to not pay this rent was dismissed by a district judge and a judge on appeal on the basis that s64(1) of the 1954 Act applied. On appeal X contended that s64 operated by deferring the effect of a s25 notice; that having vacated by the term date the served s25 notice could have no effect and thus s64 could not take effect to continue the tenancy. Appeal allowed.| Item type | Current library | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London News article | 1 | Available | 117437-1001 |
"Single Horse Properties Ltd v Surrey CC", CA 26 March 2002. Appellant tenant (X) under a 25 year lease, was served a counternotice by respondent landlord (Y) to terminate tenancy on expiry date of the 25-year term. X applied for a new tenancy pursuant to Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s26(1) but vacated the building before the expiry date of the existing tenancy. The landlord obtained an order to continue current tenancy with rent payable for three months from date of order. X's application to not pay this rent was dismissed by a district judge and a judge on appeal on the basis that s64(1) of the 1954 Act applied. On appeal X contended that s64 operated by deferring the effect of a s25 notice; that having vacated by the term date the served s25 notice could have no effect and thus s64 could not take effect to continue the tenancy. Appeal allowed.