000			01458cab a2200181 4500
001			ABS43703
008			090401t1990 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u43096
041			_aeng
245			_aSteele and another v McMahon and another
260			_c1990
350			_a0
490			_aEstates Gazette _v(1990) 44 EG 65-68(3)
520			_aCA 23 May 1990. Appeal by plaintiff (S) against CC decision rejecting claim that the balance of the premium did not fall within one of the exceptions to the Rent Act 1977 s120 . In 1983 the defendants (M) under terms of an agreement in a lease carried out structural repairs to a property at their own expense and were granted a tenancy termed as a protected tenancy by the Rent Act 1977 , In 1987 M assigned the lease to S for 115,000. S later demanded this premium back on the grounds that it was a prohibited premium under the terms of the Rent Act 1977 s120(3)(b). M accepted that 42,000 fell within this category and repaid this amount but agreed that the balance fell within s120(3)(b) as the sum was incurred on structural alterations. S argued that s120(3)(b) applied to expenditure incurred by M after lease had been assigned whilst M contested that the exception should apply to any expenditure. The CC ruling was upheld on the basis that s120(3)(b) was not restricted to expenditure incu
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-CASE LAW-RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c27555 _d27555