000			01287cam a2200217 4500
001			ABS63737
008			000000n2001 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u111485
245			_aRosen v Trustees of the Camden Charities
260			_c2001
490			_aEstates Gazette _v[2001] 10 EG 159, 159-163(5)
520			_aCA 30 November 2000. Further to an agreement with the trustees in 1850, I built 29 houses. In October 1852, when house 25 was completed, I was granted a 66 and a half year lease of number 25. The successor in title to this lease (B) sought to acquire the freehold under a notice of claim by his predecessor, in accordance with the provisions of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. On appeal the LT decided the erection of a house at number 25 was not an improvement under s9(1A) (d), and the 1850-52 building agreement did not amount to a tenancy in equity. The house should not be disregarded for the purposes of the s9(1A) valuation. B appealed. "Held". Appeal dismissed.
590			_aABS
650			_aROSEN V TRUSTEES OF THE CAMDEN CHARITIES
650			_aLEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT
650			_aLEASEHOLD REFORM ACT 1967 S9(1A)
650			_aIMPROVEMENTS
650			_aFREEHOLD
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-LEASES-CASE LAW
942			_n0
999			_c66430 _d66430