000			01535cab a2200205 4500
001			ABS41566
008			090401t1989 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u30950
041			_aeng
245			_aAslan v Murphy No 1 , Aslan v Murphy No 2 , Duke v Wynne and another
260			_c1989
350			_a0
490			_aEstates Gazette _v(1989) 38 EG 109-120(5)
520			_aCA 27 June 1989. Three cases heard together. In all the plaintiffs sought possession on the grounds that the defendants were insecure lodgers. In the first M was occupier of a room but was not granted exclusive possession of any part of the room. It was held that M was a licensee, however CA overruled this on the basis of the HL decision in Antoniades v Villers and concluded that as the agreement was unrealistic the appellant was a tenant. Following the original decision in this case the local authority served a closing order on A in respect of M`s room and A claimed possession. It was held that Housing Act 1985 did not confer an automatic right of possession on a landlord. In the last case the accommodation comprised a whole house. The appellants occupied the house under an agreement which heavily underlined the absence of exclusive possession and security of tenure , provided that at any time other people could be selected to share the house with the appellants and emphasised that
650			_aLEASES
650			_aLICENCES
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-CASE LAW-RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c20827 _d20827