000			01524cab a2200181 4500
001			ABS41121
008			090401t1989 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u28332
041			_aeng
245			_aHammersmith and Fulham LBC v Top Shop Centres Ltd ; Hammersmith and Fulham LBC v Glassgrove Ltd
260			_c1989
350			_a0
490			_aAll England Law Reports _v(1989) 2 All ER 655-672(18)
520			_aChD 19 December 1988 These were two actions begun by originating summons as a result of a dispute concerning the status of the council`s tenancy . The council (HF) sought a declaration against the defendants, successors in title of a freehold property that HF was the tenant of part of the property on the same terms contained in two underleases of 1970, made between (P), a development company, and HF for the residue of P`s lease , less ten days, or, a relief from forfeiture under Law of Property Act 1925 s146(4) . The action arose as a result of the forfeiture of P`s headlease and the defendants` assertion that the council`s underleases no longer subsisted - its tenancy being on a year-to-year basis, which could be terminated by giving six months notice. ChD held that the interests which derived from the original lease would not automatically be reinstated if the court vested a new lease in an underlessee, as those interests might not fit into the provisions of the new lease ordered b
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-CASE LAW-BUSINESS TENANCIES
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c19092 _d19092