This case concerned the question of whether the occupier of a flat was a tenant or a licensee . The owners appealed against a decision in the county court, which held the occupier to be a tenant; claiming the respondent was a licensee under the terms of a written agreement; that she had broken the terms of the licence and therefore, they were entitled to possession . The respondent pleaded that she occupied the flat under the terms of an oral agreement, and was a tenant protected by the Rent Acts . The county court had considered Street v Mountford in arriving at his decision, and concluded there was no evidence that attendance or services were provided and, referring to the definition of lodger and tenant in that case, the occupier must have had exclusive use of the room, which, therefore, made her a tenant. The CA held that the county court had erred. In Street v Mountford, it was conceded that Mrs Mountford was entitled to exclusive possession but in this case, the matter was not