000			01573cab a2200241 4500
001			ABS50045
008			090401t1993 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u73828
041			_aeng
245			_aMawer v Williams (V0)
260			_c1993
350			_a0
490			_aRating Appeals _v1993 RA 248-263(8)
520			_aLT 12 October 1993. A shop and premises were assessed at £1,700 rv. It had domestic accommodation on the ground and first floors and the non-domestic accommodation on the ground floor comprising a shop and three stores separated from the shop by a yard. The ratepayer (M), lived in the domestic section and ran the shop as a village stores and post office. M claimed that no rateable value should be ascribed to the property because he was not in beneficial occupation for three reasons. Firstly that it was the local community not himself who benefited from the shop`s presence in the village, he would only benefit if the rent as a composite unit was greater than the rent as a domestic one and that rv should be based on the difference between these figures not the floor area. Secondly that where a hereditament was worth more for a use which was not rateable, the value of the part for a use which was rateable must be either nil or negative. Thirdly that a hypothetical tenant would not use t
650			_aBENEFICIAL OCCUPATION
650			_aCOMPOSITE HEREDITAMENT
650			_aRATING APPEALS
650			_aSHOP
650			_aVILLAGE SHOP
690			_aRATING AND VALUATION-CASE LAW
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c46600 _d46600