000			01595cab a2200217 4500
001			ABS47491
008			090401t1992 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u62224
041			_aeng
245			_aOmar Parks Ltd v Elkington; Ron Grundy (Melbourne) Ltd v Boneheyo; Same v Boneheyo
260			_c1992
350			_a0
490			_aEstates Gazette _v1992 42 EG 108-112(3)
520			_aCA 8 July 1992. Cases heard together on owners` entitlement to terminate mobile home agreements under the Mobile Homes Act 1983, where the occupier is not occupying the property as his sole residence. Both appeals raise the question of whether test of occupation should be judged at date when owner applied to court or the date of occupation when the application was heard and determined. In "Omar Parks Ltd v Elkington", the occupier (E) appealed against the CC decision granting a possession order to the owner (O) on the grounds that on the date of application E had not been occupying the mobile home as his main residence whereas he had on the date of the court hearing. Held that the wording of this section, was intended to prove whether or not the site was occupied as a main residence. The question of whether it was the date of application or the date of the hearing was irrelevant. Appeal allowed. Likewise, in "Ron Grundy (Melbourne) ltd v Boneheyo" and "Same v Boneheyo" the relevance
650			_aASSIGNMENT
650			_aMAIN RESIDENCE
650			_aMOBILE HOMES ACT 1983
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-CASE LAW-RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c38663 _d38663