000			01097cab a2200193 4500
001			ABS47265
008			090401t1992 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u61298
041			_aeng
245			_aDivall v Harrison and another
260			_c1992
350			_a0
490			_aEstates Gazette _v(1992) 38 EG 149-152(2)
520			_aCA 21 February 1992. Letters were issued by the executors of a landlord`s will to terminate H`s annual tenancy. D, the plaintiff, was the residual beneficiary of that will, on whose behalf the notices were served in accordance with the specified time limit. However, H served a counter notice under the terms of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986. In court at the first instance, the notices to quit were accepted as valid, so the tenant appealed arguing that the plaintiff was not at that stage the landlord. This was accepted at the Court of Appeal, the landlord not having been correctly identified in the notice.
650			_aQUIT NOTICES
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-CASE LAW-AGRICULTURAL TENANCIES
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c37944 _d37944