000			01498cab a2200193 4500
001			ABS40502
008			090401t1989 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u24347
041			_aeng
245			_aProma Ltd and Another v Curtis and Another
260			_c1989
350			_a0
490			_aEstates Gazette _v(1989) 10 EG 106-110(3)
520			_aChD 11 October 1988 Originating summons seeking determination of the true construction of proviso a) of Leasehold Reform Act 1967 S3 in relation to the circumstances of an underlease . Proma Ltd and Another (P) held the freehold and leasehold reversions and Mr and Mrs Curtis (C) were the underlessees who had served a notice under the LRA 1967 claiming their rights to claim the freehold of their house. P contested the claim, asserting that the underlease did not qualify as a " long tenancy " within the definition of s3 of LRA 1967. ChD stated that the sole question was whether the underlease fell within proviso a) because it was executed "in pursuance of" a contract entered into before 18 April 1980. The purpose of the proviso was to ensure that the lessor would not be prejudiced by the accident that a contract for lease, entered into before 18 April 1980 had not actually been completed by that date. Therefore, the words "in pursuance" of must be interpreted to extend proviso a) only
650			_aLEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-CASE LAW-LEASEHOLD REFORM
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c16324 _d16324