ChD 22 May 1986. Underlessees(P) sought against defendants(D) payments for rent and service charges for premises in the City of London, part occupied by D. Question was whether D were liable under an oral contract to pay rent and indemnify P against service charges in relation to the underlease,or whether D were tenants,rather than licensees. Also whether the principles established in Street v Mountford ,(Abstract 34734) could be applied. The facts in respect of occupation were complex and confusing. The underlease to P was granted,but proposed subunderleases to D and other parties were never executed, proposed assignment of a part was never executed and proposed orders under Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s38(4) were never obtained. Arrangements broke down and the dispute arose as to D`s liability for rent and service charges for a part year after they left the premises. It was held there was no evidence to support a contract of indemnity. D had become tenants with the three essential