000			01362cab a2200229 4500
001			ABS45464
008			090401t1991 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u53141
041			_aeng
245			_aPatel and another v Earlspring Properties Ltd
260			_c1991
350			_a0
490			_aEstates Gazette _v1991 46 EG 153-155(3)
520			_aCA 11 March 1991. Appeal on the interpretation and application of a rent review clause in a shop lease. Raises the question of whether a letter from tenants (P) in response to landlords` (E) trigger notice constituted a valid counternotice and whether a failure by P to state a counter-proposal in regard to the rent was a fatal defect. E on appeal complained that the court had been wrong in holding that P`s counternotice was valid as it failed to specify a proposed rent citing the "Commission for the New Towns v R Levy & Co Ltd". CA held that the cited case had no application to the present case, P`s notice was valid. However, the CA dismissed the lower court`s view that by failing to negotiate, E had lost the right to have the rent reviewed. Appeal allowed in part.
650			_aCONSTRUCTION OF CLAUSE
650			_aCOUNTER NOTICE
650			_aRENT REVIEWS
650			_aTRIGGER NOTICES
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-CASE LAW-RENT REVIEWS
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c32781 _d32781