000			01392cab a2200253 4500
001			ABS47693
008			090401t1992 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u63089
041			_aeng
245			_aMalpas v St Ermin`s Property Co Ltd
260			_c1992
350			_a0
490			_aProperty and Compensation Reports _v(1992) 64 P&CR 436-439(4)
520			_aCA 5 February 1992. The two premises in question were constructed as maisonettes as part of a terrace in 1905. The external appearance was like an ordinary Edwardian house, except there were two front and back doors and the garden was divided. Mrs Malpas (M) owned the unexpired residue of the lease of the whole building and occupied one flat. The other flat was sublet to a family. M sought to purchase the freehold under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. All the requirements of the act were satisfied if the building could be described as a `house`. Initially the judge decided it was a house. The defendants appealed and it was "held" that the building could reasonably be called a house. (WB 2809-43)
650			_aACQUISITION OF FREEHOLD
650			_aDIVIDED HORIZONTALLY
650			_aENTITLEMENT
650			_aLEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT
650			_aLEASEHOLD REFORM ACT 1967
650			_aMAISONETTES
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-CASE LAW-LEASEHOLD REFORM
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c39217 _d39217