000			01445cab a2200217 4500
001			ABS44556
008			090401t1991 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u47781
041			_aeng
245			_aPalmer v McNamara
260			_c1991
350			_a0
490			_aEstates Gazette _v(1991) 17 EG 88-92(3)
520			_aCA 23 November 1990. The dispute, in which the court of appeal upheld a county court decision, arose over whether the landlord could be defined as " resident " or not, according to the Rent Act 1977 s12 , in the light of his occupation of a rear ground floor room in the building concerned. If occupation constituted residency, then the defendant tenant was not entitled to certain benefits granted by the Act. In support of his submission, the defendant argued that the landlord could not be described as resident as he did not possess a cooker and did not sleep in the room. However, these arguments were rejected and the outcome hinged rather on whether or not the landlord occupied another " dwelling house " in the same building at the commencement of the tenancy, and at all times since. The landlord had, and the court found in his favour.
650			_aPOSSESSION
650			_aRESIDENT LANDLORDS
650			_aPROPERTY-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY-RESIDENTIAL LANDLORD AND TENANT-RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-CASE LAW-RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c30094 _d30094