000			01532cab a2200241 4500
001			ABS53623
008			090401t1995 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u5414
041			_aeng
245			_aFraser Pipestock Ltd v Gloucester CC
260			_c1995
350			_a0
490			_aEstates Gazette _v(1995) 36 EG 141-143(3)
520			_aChD 3 February 1995. The plaintiff tenant holds the severed term of a lease at an apportioned yearly rent of £9,425. For every 21-year period after that the rent was to be a fair market rent set in accordance with clause 4 of the lease, which stated that it should either be £9,425, the rent payable during the previous rent period or 8% of the rack-rents receivable by the lessee. The landlords contended that as the premises were not sublet but occupied by one tenant the rent at review should be 8% of what would be a market rack-rent. It was held that rack-rents `receivable` meant the rents actually received by the tenant, therefore in this case that machinery for rent review had broken down. However neither could the court set an alternative valuation method as the parties had agreed an ad hoc means of arriving at ground rent and it was not clear what rental basis any implied term or machinery could be directed to.
650			_aFAIR MARKET RENT
650			_aRACK RENT
650			_aRENT REVIEW CLAUSE
650			_aRENT REVIEWS
650			_aVALUATION METHODS
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-CASE LAW-RENT REVIEWS
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c3220 _d3220