000			01737cab a2200217 4500
001			L129935
008			050606n2005 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u129935
041			_aeng
245			_aSmith and others v Titanate Ltd
260			_c2005
490			_aEstates Gazette _v[2005] 20 EG 262-270(9)
520			_aCentral London County Court, 18 January 2005. Considers whether the claimant landlords (S) should receive declaratory relief from the defendant company's (T) notice to acquire the freehold of the building, of which T was the sole tenant. T used the building for the business of letting out its six constituent furnished and serviced flats. T served notice on S under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 as amended by the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 to acquire the freehold. S resisted the claim on the grounds that M held a tenancy within the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Part II, which invoked a residence condition that T could not satisfy and therefore it could not enfranchise. T contended that it did not occupy the premises for the purposes of a business within the meaning of the 1954 Act s23. "Held": claim dismissed. T was not in occupation for the purposes of a business within the meaning of s23 of the Act. The lettings of the flats were tenancies and T did not have sufficient control over the flats as to be in occupation of them within s23 of the Act.
590			_aIKA070605
650			_aSMITH AND OTHERS V TITANATE LTD
650			_aLEASEHOLD REFORM ACT 1967
650			_aCOMMONHOLD AND LEASEHOLD REFORM ACT 2002
650			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1954 PART II
690			_aPROPERTY-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY-RESIDENTIAL LANDLORD AND TENANT-RESIDENTIAL LEASES
942			_n0
999			_c75356 _d75356