000			01485cab a22002175a 4500
001			L138644
008			070628e20070622xxk f 000 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u138644
041	0		_aeng
100	1		_aRoss, Jonathan
245	0	0	_aTenant's extra
260			_c2007
490			_aProperty Week _v72(25) 22 June 2007, 91(1)
520			_aReports on the case of Crow and another V Waters and another, heard on 15 May 2007. The case shows that it is essential for an occupier to have been granted exclusive occupation of land for a tenancy to be created. C was given permission to use land for peat extraction. C claimed they had been orally granted a tenancy and were therefore protected under legislation. W argued he had only granted a licence for the property to be used. Furthermore, C had not had exclusive occupation as another party had licence to farm the land. C argued that there had been correspondence in existence referring to them as tenants. "Held": When this correspondence was produced, W immediately claimed it to be a forgery. The judge noted the misspelling of W's name. He decided on balance of probability that it was a forgery. Therefore there had been no lease or exclusive occupation, but merely a licence.
590			_aKA
650	2	4	_aCROW AND ANOTHER V WATERS AND ANOTHER
650	2	4	_aLANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1954
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aPROPERTY-LANDLORD AND TENANT-TENANCIES-AGRICULTURAL TENANCIES
942			_n0
999			_c78944 _d78944