000 01140cab a2200253 4500
001 WB3520-27
008 090401t1999 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035 _a(Sirsi) u93548
041 _aeng
245 _aContinuing alone
260 _c1999
350 _a0
490 _aEstates Gazette
_v(9902) 22 May 1999, 155(1)
520 _aDiscusses de Rothschild v Bell in which it was decided that a tenant was entitled to remain in possession of a property under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 part I, despite being only one of two joint tenants. It was held that the Act conferred protection on 'persons rather than legal concepts'. It was also held that unlike a statutory tenancy, a continuation tenancy is a property interest and may therefore vest in a trustee in bankruptcy.
650 _aBANKRUPTCY
650 _aCONTINUATION TENANCIES
650 _aDE ROTHSCHILD V BELL
650 _aInsolvency
_96247
650 _aJOINT TENANCIES
650 _aLANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1954 PART I
690 _aPROPERTY-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY-RESIDENTIAL LANDLORD AND TENANT-RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES
942 _n0
948 _c25/05/1999
999 _c59278
_d59278