Aslan v Murphy (No 1) [1990] 1 WLR 766
Landlord and tenant; whether agreement is a lease which expressly excludes exclusive possession
Facts
Murphy occupied a basement room under an agreement which expressly stated he did not hold exclusive possession. Under the agreement, the landlord maintained a key to the premises, and he was purportedly to be excluded from the property for 90 minutes of each day. Murphy challenged an order for possession arguing that the agreement amounted to a lease and not a licence and he was, therefore, entitled to the security of tenure provisions of the Rent Act 1977.
Issues
To be a protected tenant under the Rent Act 1977, an occupier must show the agreement amounts to a lease under which he enjoys exclusive possession for a term. Murphy contended the retention of the key and the purported exclusion from the right to occupy for 90 minutes of every day was a sham intended to avoid his being awarded the protections of the Rent Act, and the agreement amounted to a lease in substance and effect. The landlord contended that Murphy was a lodger, and the agreement amounted only to a licence under which he enjoyed no right to exclusive possession.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
Held
The Court of Appeal held that Murphy had a tenancy and set aside the possession order. The restrictions on sharing and the daily exclusion were pretences that did not reflect the actual agreement. The retention of keys by a landlord does not in and of itself preclude the occupier from enjoying exclusive possession. The court should examine the reasons why the landlord holds the key. If it is retained for emergencies, meter readings and to conduct repairs, then the finding of a tenancy would not be precluded. If the keys were retained for services such as daily bed making and cleaning, then it would be more likely that the occupier would be deemed a lodger.
Reported citations: [1990] 1 WLR 766, [1990] WLR 766, [1989] 3 All ER 130, [1989] 2 EGLR 57, 21 HLR 532, 59 P&CR 407, [1989] 38 EG 109
Source: Full judgment
