Aslan v Murphy [1990] 1 WLR 766

Cases where the Plaintiffs were paying rent for accommodation to Defendants, and the agreements stated that they did not have exclusive possession and would have to share the property with other people to whom Defendants might give possession, as well as stating that the freeholder would keep keys.

CA held that Plaintiffs were tenants since, on a true construction, there was “exclusive possession” (definite periods and rents were not in contention).

If the true bargain was that the defendants were entitled to exclusive possession of the premises unless and until the plaintiffs required them to share their occupation, the defendants were tenants.

Here the claims that Plaintiffs could be forced to share possession was a pretence, while the retention of keys by Defendant was ineffective.