Drew-Morgan v Hamid-Zadeh [1999]

A s. 21 notice was held also to have been valid as a s. 48 notice, as it provided the tenant with the landlord’s name and an address at which notices could be served. A landlord granted a tenancy of a flat to a tenant, believing it to be an assured shorthold tenancy. When he wanted to terminate the tenancy, the landlord therefore served a s. 21 notice with a view to using the accelerated procedure provided for by s. 21 to recover possession on the termination of the tenancy. The s. 21 notice recorded the landlord’s name and the name and address of her solicitors, who were described as the ‘landlord’s agent’. The landlord later invoked the accelerated procedure by serving a county court application (s. 21 application), in which the name and address of the same solicitors was inserted into a printed box with the cation ‘for service and payment’. The landlord obtained a possession order, but the tenant successfully applied for a rehearing. The s. 21 application was later consolidated with new proceedings brought by the landlord. This claim was founded on Ground 2 of statutory grounds for possession and alleged that the tenant had persistently delayed paying rent ‘which has become lawfully due’. At the rehearing, the s. 21 was