Read the full judgment text of DCCJ 000830/2006 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment.
1. The claim of the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs arose in relation to a Provisional Tenancy Agreement dated 29 November 2005 in respect of certain shop premises. The 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs were named as Landlord in the Provisional Tenancy Agreement and the Defendant was named as Tenant. The parties had however never entered into the contemplated Formal Tenancy Agreement. The main thrust of the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs' case was that the Defendant was in breach of the Provisional Tenancy Agreement in not
Cites 2 cases