000			02076cam a2200289 4500
001			ABS67851
008			040602n2004 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u126381
245			_aEarl Cadogan and another v Strauss
260			_c2004
490			_aEstates Gazette _v[2004] 19 EG 166-173(8)
520			_a[2004] EWCA Civ 211, 9 February 2004. Appellant landlords (C) owned the freehold of a house and garden let to respondent tenant (S) under two leases in 1983. Two earlier 1972 leases being surrendered when the 1983 leases were granted. The notice of desire to acquire the freeholds under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 served on behalf of S referred only to the 1983 leases. C refused the notice because the tenancy was not a low-rent tenancy as the rent payable in the first year of the tenancy. The County Court judgment rejected C's arguments that the notice was invalid because it did not refer to the 1972 lease and that the rent payable during the initial tenancy year, be it 1972 or 1983, exceeded two-thirds of the rateable value. C appealed. "Held": appeal dismissed. Following s3(3) of the Act, the hypothetical single tenancy commenced in 1972 was the relevant tenancy. Although the notice failed to refer to the 1972 lease of the house, it was saved by Sched 3 Part II para 6(3) of the Act. For the purposes of s4A(1) of the Act, the rent payable during the first year of the tenancy was less than two-thirds of the rateable value at the relevant date.
590			_aABS
590			_aABS
650			_aEARL CADOGAN AND ANOTHER V STRAUSS
650			_aLOW RENT TEST
650			_aRATEABLE VALUE
650			_aLEASEHOLD REFORM ACT 1967 S3(3)
650			_aLEASEHOLD REFORM ACT 1967 S6
650			_aLEASEHOLD REFORM ACT 1967 SCHED 3 PART II PARA 6
650			_aLEASEHOLD REFORM ACT 1967 S4A(1)
650			_aCRESSWELL V DUKE OF WESTMINSTER
650			_aSPEEDWELL ESTATES LTD AND ANOTHER V DALZIEL AND OTHERS
650			_aLEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES-CASE LAW
942			_n0
999			_c117450 _d117450