The defendant served a notice on the plaintiff tenants purportedly under the section. The defendant had been the landlord but shortly before serving the notice the defendant had assigned its interest in the property in question to its parent company and so had ceased to be the landlord. As section 25 required the landlord to serve the notice, the notice was held to be invalid.
Aldous J
[1990] 1 EGLR 261
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 25
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – York and Another v Casey and Another CA 16-Feb-1998
The plaintiffs let property to the respondents. The notice of shorthold tenancy issued prior to the tenancy commencing had obvious errors in the dates. The issue was as to its validity.
Held: The error was evident, the termination date . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.187733
