000			01539cab a2200205 4500
001			ABS39855
008			090401t1988 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u19460
041			_aeng
245			_aConway v Arthur and Others
260			_c1988
350			_a0
490			_aEstates Gazette _v(8840) 8 October 1988, 120-122(2)
520			_aCA 9 June 1988. Appeal by tenant (C) from part of a CC decision concerning the amount of interim rent payable on a lock-up butcher`s shop in Wembley. The CC also ruled on the rent for the new tenancy . He fixed the annual rent at £4,981.50 and the interim rent at £4,234. In determining the interim rent, the CC gave no reasons for the award, but settled on a figure 15% less than the rent for the new term. C appealed, contending that, in arriving at a figure only 15% below current market rent, but 230% above existing rent, CC did not have sufficient regard to the existing rent, as required by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s24A; neither did the CC take into account the figure put forward by C`s surveyor for the interim rent,ie £2,500. At issue was whether the CC had properly exercised discretion. In CA, attention was drawn, on behalf of C, to the decision in Charles Follett Ltd v Cabtell Investments Ltd, CA 1987, see Abstract 37967, where it was considered that the primary purpose of
650			_aHALBERSTAM V TANDALCO CORPORATION NV
650			_aINTERIM RENTS
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-CASE LAW-BUSINESS TENANCIES
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c12993 _d12993