000			01550cab a2200193 4500
001			ABS38931
008			090401t1988 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u13393
041			_aeng
245			_aAntoniades v Villiers and Bridger
260			_c1988
350			_a0
490			_aNew Law Journal _v25 March 1988, 87-89(3)
520			_aCA 17 March 1988 The landlord Antoniades (A) let a flat to an unmarried couple (V) and (B) under separate but identical licence agreements. The agreement signed by V stated that the licensor "is not willing to grant the licensee exclusive possession of any part of the rooms" and included an addendum that V "hereby agrees that the licence...does not come within the Rent Acts and the flat is for single people sharing....No person will have exclusive possession of above flat as agreed". A later gave notice to quit and on V and B`s refusal to leave, sought an order for possession in the cc. The court held that V and B were tenants and entitled to the protection of the Rent Acts. On appeal, CA held that if a letting agreement purporting to be a licence is to be regarded as a sham and in reality a tenancy protected by the Rent Acts, it must be shown not only that the occupants intended that they should enjoy a right to exclusive possession, but also that the landlord shared that intention
650			_aPROPERTY-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY-RESIDENTIAL LANDLORD AND TENANT-RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-CASE LAW-RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c8637 _d8637