000			01581cab a2200217 4500
001			ABS39858
008			090401t1988 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u19495
041			_aeng
245			_aSkeet and Another v Powell-Sheddon
260			_c1988
350			_a0
490			_aEstates Gazette _v(8840) 8 October 1988, 116-120(3)
520			_aCA 19 May 1988. Appeal by tenants (S) from cc decision dismissing an application for a new tenancy of premises occupied as a private hotel and lodging house. The landlord (P) opposed the application under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s30(1)(g), which provides that a landlord must show that he `intends to occupy the holding for the purposes... of a business to be carried on by him ...`. P, who lived outside London, intended to run the premises as a hotel with her husband, who would attend to day-to-day management, and her daughter. There was no suggestion that P would move into the premises herself. No formal partnership arrangements between P and her husband had been made. S contended that these proposed arrangements did not satisfy s30(1)(g), arguing that P would be occupying the premises through her husband as agent and was insufficient to show that P would be "carrying on a business" on the holding. CA rejected this submission. It was not necessary to show that P would physica
650			_aBUSINESS TENANCIES
650			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1954 S30(2)(G)
650			_aNEW TENANCIES
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-CASE LAW-BUSINESS TENANCIES
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c13019 _d13019