000			01510cab a2200193 4500
001			ABS41267
008			090401t1989 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u29266
041			_aeng
245			_aTrusthouse Forte Albany Hotels Ltd v Daejan Investments Ltd (No 2)
260			_c1989
350			_a0
490			_aEstates Gazette _v(1989) 30 EG 87-92(4)
520			_aCA 17 March 1989. Appeal by landlords (D) from a ChD decision on an originating summons for the construction of rent review provisions in an underlease. There had been proceedings in 1980 about the first rent review; the current proceedings arose in connection with the second rent review and a summons was issued by the tenants. The parties had agreed to the formulation of six questions, superseding those in the summons. ChD made declarations in answer, and D appealed against two of the declarations. These were: 1) in assessing the rental value of the areas edged red on Plans C and D it should be assumed that each area is separately let so that the rental value is the aggregate of the values of individual areas; 2) that the words "on the basis that those areas are ... available for letting for shopping and retail purposes" mean that they are only to be taken to be available for those purposes only. CA disagreed with the first declaration, stating that in the natural construction of th
650			_aBUSINESS TENANCIES
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-CASE LAW-RENT REVIEWS
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c19708 _d19708