Home Information Cases Yenula Properties Ltd v. Venkat Mun Swami Naidu (2002)

Skip to content. | Skip to navigation

Yenula Properties Ltd v. Venkat Mun Swami Naidu (2002)

Summary

The appeal judge had been right to differ from the trial judge's findings of fact and to find that the defendant tenant was entitled only to an assured shorthold tenancy and not an assured tenancy. * Leave to appeal to the House of Lords refused.

Facts

Appeal by the defendant tenant ('T') from the decision of Lloyd J by which he allowed an appeal by the claimant landlord ('L') from a decision of HH Judge Bradbury and declared that the tenancy between the parties was an assured shorthold tenancy and not an assured tenancy as contended by T and as found by the trial judge. By this appeal T contended that Lloyd J had wrongly and/or improperly reversed a number of crucial findings of fact made by the trial judge.

Held

(1) It was clear from the terms of his judgment that Lloyd J had been very well aware of the limited role and heavy burden of an appellate tribunal asked to reverse findings of fact made by the trial judge, who had seen and heard the witnesses. (2) However, he had been right to conclude that some critical findings of fact made by the trial judge could not stand. The trial judge, no doubt because of the highly unsatisfactory way in which the case had developed before him, had overlooked or wrongly evaluated some important pieces of evidence. (3) This court was wholly satisfied that Lloyd J's decision was correct.

Court of Appeal
Robert Walker LJ, Rix LJ, Arden LJ
Judgment date
23 May 2002
References

​LTL 23/5/2002 : (2002) 23 EG 121 (CS) : (2002) 42 EG 162 : Times, June 5, 2002 : Independent, July 29, 2002