000			01919cab a2200205 4500
001			##L135013
008			060919n2006 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u135013
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aMajorstake Limited v Monty Curtis
260			_c2006
520			_a[2006] EWCA Civ 1171, 8 August 2006. C was the lessee of a flat in a block of flats of which M was the freehold owner. C held the flat under a long lease and five years before the expiry of the lease gave notice to the landlord under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 s42 that he wished to acquire a new lease. M then served a notice under s45 admitting the tenant's right to acquire such a lease but stating that it intended to apply for an order under s47 since it intended to redevelop the premises in which the flat was contained. This would mean that C could not renew his lease. The redevelopment proposed by the landlord was the conversion of C's flat and the flat immediately below it into a maisonette. The issue in question was whether these two flats constituted any premises in which the [tenant's] flat is contained within the meaning of s47(2)b. The judge at the Central London County Court had held that it did not and M then appealed. Held: appeal allowed. The part of the building comprising the two flats could be described as premises containing the tenant's flat for the purposes of s47 of the Act.
590			_aIKA031006
650	2	4	_aLEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993 S47
650	2	4	_aMAJORSTAKE LTD V CURTIS
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aPROPERTY-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY-RESIDENTIAL LANDLORD AND TENANT-RESIDENTIAL LEASES-RESIDENTIAL LEASE RENEWAL
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/1171.html&query=MAJORSTAKE&method=all _zView the judgment free of charge at www.bailii.org...
942			_n0
999			_c77749 _d77749