000			01500cab a2200205 4500
001			ABS42741
008			090401t1990 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u38662
041			_aeng
245			_aMeyer v Riddick and others
260			_c1990
350			_a0
490			_aEstates Gazette _v(1990) 18 EG 97-98(2)
520			_aCA 24 October 1989. Appeal by tenant (M) from cc decision dismissing his application for a new tenancy and holding that landlords (H) had established the grounds of opposition set out in Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s30(1)(g) that they intended to use the premises for business purposes. H, trustees under a trust for sale, had acquired the reversionary interest in 1980. Two of the trustees intended to occupy the premises for the purpose of a business carried on by them in partnership with other persons, but the third trustee did not intend to do so. In order not to exclude the third trustee from the benefit of beneficial interest under the trust for sale, it was necessary for the three trustees to let the premises under a lease to the partnership as a whole. This meant that the first two trustees would occupy the premises by virtue of the lease and not by virtue of their position as beneficiaries under a trust. That was not occupation as "beneficiaries" under the 1954 Act and did not
650			_aBUSINESS TENANCIES
650			_aCASE LAW
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-CASE LAW-BUSINESS TENANCIES
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c24841 _d24841