000			01192cab a2200217 4500
001			ABS45746
008			090401t1992 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u54875
041			_aeng
245			_aCity of London Corporation v Fell and others
260			_c1992
350			_a0
490			_aEstates Gazette _v(1992) 02 EG 172-176(4)
520			_aThe defendants (F) acquired a 10-year lease, assigning it to Grove Bell after three. However, the assignees continued in occupation after the original expiry date, but claimed a continuation under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s12. Grove Bell was wound up within the year leaving rent unpaid. The plaintiff landlord (C) applied to F, as lessee, for reparation. F retorted that its covenant did not provide for payments under any continuation of the tenancy under the 1954 Act. "Held" that the assignee had not remained in occupation after expiration of the contractual term, and that F was not responsible for the missing rent.
650			_aBUSINESS TENANCIES
650			_aEXPIRATION OF TERM
650			_aRENT ARREARS
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-CASE LAW-BUSINESS TENANCIES
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c33619 _d33619