Mehta v Royal Bank of Scotland (2000) 32 HLR 45
Landlord and tenant; leases or contractual license; wrongful eviction
Facts
The Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) were the mortgagees in possession of a hotel in Kensington. A receiver was appointed who continued to run the property as a hotel pending sale. Mehta entered in to an oral agreement with the manager with RBS’ consent, that he should occupy a room in the hotel with exclusive possession for an agreed monthly rent. Six months later Mehta was told to vacate the property the following day as a sale had been agreed. Mehta refused and was evicted the following day. Mehta sought damages for wrongful eviction and trespass.
Issues
Mehta argued the agreement amounted to a tenancy because he had exclusive possession of the room and the services provided by the hotel were limited in nature. He, therefore, claimed he held an assured tenancy under s1 Housing Act 1988 based on the definition of a tenancy in Street v Mountford [1985] AC 809. Mehta also claimed the removal of his belongings from his room amounted to a trespass. RBS claimed Mehta was a mere hotel room occupant and, as such, had no right to be given any notice period at all.
Held
Mehta was awarded damages for wrongful eviction. The test in Street v Mountford defining a tenancy as an occupation for a term at a rent with exclusive possession is useful in indicating the existence of a tenancy. The existence of these factors were not decisive, however, where other factors come into play. Here both parties knew the property was to be sold as a going concern, and that the arrangements were not those typically associated with hotel rooms. Mehta was, therefore, a contractual licensee who was entitled to a notice period of four months.
Updated 21 March 2026
This case summary remains legally accurate. Mehta v Royal Bank of Scotland (2000) 32 HLR 45 is a valid and correctly cited authority. The core legal principles discussed — the Street v Mountford [1985] AC 809 test for distinguishing a lease from a licence, the relevance of exclusive possession, and the circumstances in which a contractual licence may arise despite the presence of factors associated with a tenancy — remain good law. Section 1 of the Housing Act 1988 (as amended, including by the Housing Act 1996) continues to govern assured tenancies in England and Wales, and the statutory framework described is still in force, though students should note that the Renters’ Rights Bill, which was before Parliament as of early 2025, proposes significant reforms to the assured tenancy regime including the abolition of fixed-term assured shorthold tenancies. Those reforms had not yet become law at the time of this review and do not affect the analysis in this case. The case itself concerns a contractual licence rather than an assured tenancy, so prospective legislative changes to the assured tenancy framework are unlikely to alter its relevance as an illustration of the lease/licence distinction.
