000			01697cab a2200229 4500
001			ABS68654
008			050126n2004 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u128615
245			_aIndiana Investments Ltd v Taylor
260			_c2004
490			_aEstates Gazette _v[2004] 50 EG 86, 88-91(6)
520			_aCentral London CC, 3 September 2004. Claimant nominee purchaser (I) had served a collective notice of enfranchisement under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 on behalf of the residential tenants of two adjoining buildings owned by landlord (T). T contended that enfranchisement was not possible because the aggregation of the non-residential and common parts of the buildings in fact together exceeded 25% of the internal area of the building and T further disputed the proper categorisation of certain areas. "Held": claim allowed. The tenants were entitled to enfranchise as the non-residential proportion was 24.11126%. Common parts and non-residential uses are not aggregated together for the purpose of the 25% proportion under the 1993 Act s4(1)(a). It is only if the non-residential proportion of the aggregate exceeds 25% that the premises cannot be enfranchised and the burden of proof that it is the case falls upon the landlord.
590			_aABS
650			_aLEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993
650			_aLEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993 S4(1)(A)
650			_aSMIRK V LYNDALE DEVELOPMENTS LTD
650			_aBRITTON V ESTMANCO LTD
650			_aRICS CODE OF MEASURING PRACTICE
650			_aLEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-LEASEHOLD REFORM
942			_n0
999			_c74758 _d74758