000			01542cab a2200229 4500
001			ABS45931
008			090401t1992 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u55955
041			_aeng
245			_aBridgers and Hamptons Residential v Stanford
260			_c1992
350			_a0
490			_aProperty and Compensation Reports _v(1992) 63 PCR 18-30(12)
520			_aCA 24 April 1991. Appellant X was landlord and respondents Y tenants of a business tenancy in respect of which X gave notice of termination under Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s25. It was in the form prescribed by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Part II (Notices) Regulations 1983. Y claimed this was invalid as it did not name them as tenants, it related to the whole of the premises whereas they only occupied the ground and first floors and it did not comply with law as it only required them to notify the landlord in writing within two months if they were not willing to give up possession. At the original hearing the first two parts were held in X`s favour and the third in Y`s. On appeal it was held that the notice was valid. X must have known that the notice only applied to their part of the building and that the nature of the counter notice was not relevant.
650			_aBUSINESS TENANCIES
650			_aCOUNTER NOTICE
650			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1954 PART II (NOTICES) REGULATIONS
650			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1954 S25
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-CASE LAW-BUSINESS TENANCIES
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c34186 _d34186