Chohan v McManus

Chohan v McManus

The defendant was not occupying the premises as his only or principal home immediately before the grant of the assured shorthold tenancy, as evidenced by his prolonged absence, non-payment of rent, and handing back of keys. Therefore, the assured tenancy had ended and the landlord was entitled to possession under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988.

Parties
Respondent/claimant: Chohan; Appellant/defendant: McManus
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Assured Tenancy, Assured Shorthold Tenancy, Possession Proceedings, Principal Home Requirement
Landlord and Tenant Law Assured Tenancy Assured Shorthold Tenancy Possession Proceedings Principal Home Requirement

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chohan

Respondent/claimant

McManus

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant ceased to occupy the premises as his only or principal home prior to the grant of the assured shorthold tenancy
  2. 2 Whether the assured tenancy had ended before the shorthold tenancy was granted, entitling the landlord to possession under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant was not occupying the premises as his only or principal home immediately before the grant of the assured shorthold tenancy, as evidenced by his prolonged absence, non-payment of rent, and handing back of keys. Therefore, the assured tenancy had ended and the landlord was entitled to possession under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed