000			01823cab a2200325 4500
001			ABS59197
008			090401t1998 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u87956
041			_aeng
245			_aBhogal v Cheema
260			_c1998
350			_a0
490			_aEstates Gazette _v[1998] 29 EG 117-119(3)
520			_aChD 19 February 1998. B was surety for Alpine Computer Services (A), the tenant. In 1991 the landlord (C) accepted rent from GA, who had sought consent to an assignment of the lease, on the basis that it was paid on behalf of A. Further rent was accepted from GA during 1992. C regarded A and GA as sister companies under the same control, and the occupation by GA as under some form of informal licence. A went into creditors` compulsory liquidaton and the liquidator disclaimed the lease in June 1996. A statutory demand for arrears of rent was made on B, and B`s application to set it aside was dismissed by the registrar. B appealed contending there had been an implied surrender by A and an acceptance of GA as the new tenant. "Held" there was no evidence that there was an offer by A to surrender, no evidence that GA took possession on this basis with the consent of C, and C had not failed to mitigate his losses by failing to take possession of the premises. Appeal dismissed.
650			_aACCEPTANCE OF RENT
650			_aASSIGNMENT
650			_aFOSTER V ROBINSON
650			_aHINDCASTLE V BARBARA ATTENBOROUGH ASSOCIATES
650			_aIMPLIED SURRENDERS
650			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT _96252
650			_aLIABILITY
650			_aLIQUIDATION
650			_aMITIGATION OF LOSS
650			_aPOSSESSION
650			_aRENT ARREARS
650			_aSURETIES
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-CASE LAW-BUSINESS TENANCIES
942			_n0
948			_c12/08/1998
999			_c55514 _d55514