CA 3 April 1987. An appeal by the tenant from an order in the county court striking out an application for the grant of a new tenancy for a restaurant. The landlords opposed the grant on the grounds in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s30 (1)(a) and (b). The case came up for hearing on s30(1)(b), which concerned the delay by the tenant in paying rent. However, the case was adjourned at a late stage when the landlords, applied to strike out the application on a new ground - that of s23(1), which required that the premises should be "occupied by the tenant" and so occupied "for the purposes of a business carried on...". The county court judge found that the premises had been occupied as a restaurant by a series of companies of which the tenant held shares. However, the tenant played only a minor part in running the restaurant. It was submitted that the last two of these companies were the alter ego of the tenant and occupation by them could be regarded as occupation by him under the Ac