[2006] EWCA Civ 1709. The respondent had lived in the upper part of the premises for some time before using the lower part for business purposes. Following a rent review, the landlord had increased the annual rent. The respondent had failed to pay the increased sum. The landlord's claim for possession and arrears of rent had been granted by the district judge on the basis that the tenancy created by the lease was a business and not a residential tenancy. On appeal, the judge had declined to remit the case for the status of the tenancy to be decided and instead made a suspended order for possession. The issue was whether it was reasonably arguable that the tenancy was an assured tenancy within the meaning of the Housing Act 1988 rather than a business tenancy within the meaning of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. The respondent submitted that the case ought to be remitted for decision, arguing that it was relevant to consider whether the business use was incidental to use as a home and whether the business activity was part of his aim and objective in occupying the house. "Held": the terms of the lease were not compatible with the proposition that once the shop was open for business, his use of that part of the premises was incidental to his use of the other part as his home, or that running the shop was not part of the reason for his occupying the premises.