000			01642cab a2200229 4500
001			##ABS36856
008			090401t1986 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u688
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aMorrow v Nadeem
260			_c1986
350			_a0
490		0	_aEstates Gazette _v279 (6301) 13 September 1986, 1083-1088 (4)
520			_aCA 27 July 1986. The matter in contention was the validity of two notices served under Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s25 on M. Both were on a standard printed form corresponding to Form 7 in the schedule to the Landlord and Tenant (Notices) Regulations 1957 as amended. The name of a landlord was not mentioned on the notices; the notices were signed by a firm of solicitors described as Solicitors and Agents for Alfred Danzig (D). D was the controlling shareholder in the company which was the landlord at the date of the notices. The CA held that the county court judge was in error in finding the notices were valid. Statutory notices required the name and address of the landlord to be stated on the prescribed form. The information was material and not only was it omitted but there was a misleading implication in the description of the solicitors as agents for D. The notices were invalid, a view supported by consideration of a number of authorities. Appeal allowed.
650	2	4	_aMORROW V NADEEM
650	2	4	_aLANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1954 S25
650	2	4	_aLANDLORD AND TENANT (NOTICES) REGULATIONS 1957
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aPROPERTY-LEASEHOLD PROPERTY-LANDLORD AND TENANT-TENANCIES-AGRICULTURAL TENANCIES
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c351 _d351