000			01546cam a2200229 4500
001			WB3813-16
008			020411n2002 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u117437
245			_aBusiness tenancy determination
260			_c2002
490			_aEstates Gazette _v[2002] 14 EG 126 (CS) (6/4/2002)
520			_a"Single Horse Properties Ltd v Surrey CC", CA 26 March 2002. Appellant tenant (X) under a 25 year lease, was served a counternotice by respondent landlord (Y) to terminate tenancy on expiry date of the 25-year term. X applied for a new tenancy pursuant to Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s26(1) but vacated the building before the expiry date of the existing tenancy. The landlord obtained an order to continue current tenancy with rent payable for three months from date of order. X's application to not pay this rent was dismissed by a district judge and a judge on appeal on the basis that s64(1) of the 1954 Act applied. On appeal X contended that s64 operated by deferring the effect of a s25 notice; that having vacated by the term date the served s25 notice could have no effect and thus s64 could not take effect to continue the tenancy. Appeal allowed.
590			_aWB
650			_aBUSINESS TENANCIES
650			_aSINGLE HORSE PROPERTIES V SURREY CC
650			_aVACANT BUILDINGS
650			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1954 S23(1)
650			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1954 S24(1)
650			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1954 S64
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-BUSINESS TENANCIES-CASE LAW
942			_n0
999			_c69963 _d69963