000			01582cab a2200229 4500
001			ABS43380
008			090401t1990 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u41506
041			_aeng
245			_aBecker v Hill Street Properties Ltd
260			_c1990
350			_a0
490			_aEstates Gazette _v(1990) 38 EG 107-111(4)
520			_aAn appeal by the landlords (H) from a decision in the County Court, granting the B a new tenancy which did not contain a development break clause . H appealed. At issue was whether the Judge had applied the correct principles in exercising his discretion. It was held that he had not. Citing JH Edwards and Sons Ltd v Central London Commercial Estates Ltd , and other cases which concerned redevelopment by landlords and the inclusion of break clauses, the CA concluded that the judge had misdirected himself; it was irrelevant whether or not he thought a particular development proposed by H was desirable - it was up to (H) not for the Judge or court to make a judgement. The matter was therefore at large before the CA to exercise their own discretion as to the duration of the term to be granted to the tenant and whether it should contain a break clause. The court concluded that as the term awarded by the Judge was for a short period it was reasonable to grant the tenant a term without any
650			_aADAMS V GREEN
650			_aDENTAL SURGERY
650			_aLEASE TERMS
650			_aUPSONS LTD V E ROBINS LTD
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-CASE LAW-BUSINESS TENANCIES
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c26653 _d26653