Arora v Anas [2012] EWCA Civ 102 (25 January 2012)

Arora v Anas [2012] EWCA Civ 102 (25 January 2012)

The Section 21 notice was validly served as the statutory periodic tenancy was monthly, the deposit was repaid and acknowledged, and no important point of principle or compelling reason justified a second appeal.

Citation
[2012] EWCA Civ 102
Parties
Applicant: Arora; Respondent: Anas
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 January 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Bring a Second Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Tenancy Termination, Section 21 Notice, Tenancy Deposit Protection, Appeal Procedure
Landlord and Tenant Civil Procedure Tenancy Termination Section 21 Notice Tenancy Deposit Protection Appeal Procedure

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arora

Applicant

Anas

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Bring a Second Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tenancy was validly terminated under the Housing Act 1988
  2. 2 Whether the Section 21 notice was properly served
  3. 3 Whether the deposit was repaid in accordance with the Housing Act 2004

Ratio Decidendi

The Section 21 notice was validly served as the statutory periodic tenancy was monthly, the deposit was repaid and acknowledged, and no important point of principle or compelling reason justified a second appeal.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal refused