000			01223cam a2200217 4500
001			ABS63736
008			000000n2001 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u111483
245			_aBurman v Mount Cook Land Ltd
260			_c2001
490			_aEstates Gazette _v[2001] 10 EG, 164-166(3)
520			_aCentral London CC 20 November 2000. Under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 s42, tenant (A) sought a new lease, and proposed a premium of £110,000. In a counternotice landlord (B) proposed a premium of £175,000. A contended B's counternotice was invalid, as it failed to admit A's claim, and claimed entitlement to an extended lease at the amount specified in his claim notice. "Held". Claim dismissed. A had been unreasonable in thinking B's counternotice did not admit the right to a new lease. The counternotice was valid for the purposes of s45(2)(a) of the 1993 Act.
590			_aABS
650			_aLEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT
650			_aEXTENDED LEASES
650			_aBURMAN V MOUNT COOK LAND LTD
650			_aLEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993
650			_aCOUNTER NOTICE
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-LEASES-CASE LAW
942			_n0
999			_c66428 _d66428