‘Occupation’ by a tenant does not require physical occupation by him for him to have the right to renew the lease under the Act. A market operator letting all the stalls in a market area was a protected tenant. Judges: Lord Nicholls Citations: Gazette 13-Apr-1994, Times 02-Mar-1994 Statutes: Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 23(1) Part … Continue reading Graysim Holdings Ltd v P and O Property Holdings Ltd: CA 2 Mar 1994
The tenant claimed Rent Act protection for his tenancy. He had been rehoused and began his tenancy in 1970 with the ground floor used as a shop, and the first floor as living accomodation. He later abandoned the business use. He appealed a finding that he did not have protection under the 1977 Act. Held: … Continue reading Tan and Another v Sitkowski: CA 1 Feb 2007
Protection was sought under the 1954 Act for premises where the relevant occupation was partly residential and partly for the purposes of a business. Held: The Act will apply so long as the business activity is a significant purpose of occupation. It must be more than incidental. The business occupation must exist both at the … Continue reading Cheryl Investments v Saldanha: CA 1978
The lease included a right to use seven designated parking spaces. The parties disputed whether parking space could be occupied in such a way as to be given protection under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
Held: A parking space is an . .
