000			01621cab a2200229 4500
001			ABS45748
008			090401t1992 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u54882
041			_aeng
245			_aLewis-Graham and Another v Conacher
260			_c1992
350			_a0
490			_aEstates Gazette _v(1992) 02 EG 171-172(2)
520			_aCA 28 October 1992. The appellant (C) had held the tenancy of a house with extension, but at the times of receiving a notice to quit from the landlord, was engaged in building a wall in place of two connecting internal doors. The `granny flat` was served by common power and water supplies, though as it had its own front door, the two subsequently sealed doors were kept locked. At issue was whether the building was one or had become two, with the validity of the notice resting on the decision. The trial judge had considered the building to be one as the division of the premises was not complete and therefore the notice stood. On appeal the court recognised the case was borderline, but the trial judge was competent to decide as he did. The tenancy was not protected, and therefore, under the Rent Act 1977 s12 did not become a statutory tenancy. The appeal was dismissed.
650			_aADJOINING DWELLINGS
650			_aBUILT ENVIRONMENT-BUILDING ELEMENTS-COMPLETE BUILDING ELEMENTS-WALLS-INTERNAL WALLS AND PARTITIONS
650			_aRENT ACT 1977 S12
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			_c33622 _d33622