What is the law on 9/10th possession?

Does this constitute exclusive possession when dealing with Commercial Property Law?

• I wasn't sure which category to put this in, but this is concerning the law in England and Wales. If a property is divided into two similar units, Unit A and Unit B with each being let to separate tenants, are the tenants said to have exclusive possession or is it just exclusive occupation? If I could get answers on this, i would be very grateful, I am extremely stuck on this point. Many thanks!

• Answer:

  A tenant is someone who owns a lease. Any other form of occupation (other than as freehold owner) would be as a licensee only. Your question mentions a "tenant" who is "let" (ie leased) a unit. By definition, to be a tenant / to have a lease you must have exclusive possession. So if someone is described as a tenant or having a lease, they must have exclusive possession. I have not really come across the term exclusive occupation, but I can't see how it would mean anything different to exclusive possession anyway. The situation of a single building divided into multiple units is very common - possibly the most common commercial letting scenario. The question of a shared front door is a bit of a red herring. A "front door" onto the street could easily lead into a shared foyer from which 2 separate units are accessed. A "front door" inside a building could still lead into a shared area from which 2 separate units are accessed. Provided the "tenant" has exclusive possession of his area (and pays a market rent or has paid a premium) there will be a lease. Edit: Sorry, but you appear to be misunderstanding things. You are correct in that judges look at the substance of an agreement and not the words. Usually this is to find a lease when the landlord is trying to claim a mere licence. The point is that the two requirements for a lease are (as I said) exclusive possession and payment of rent. If these are satisifed it is fairly certain the agreement will be a lease. In practical terms exclusive possession is the same as exclusive occupation. Maybe it could be argued that you can in possession without being in occupation (eg if a tenant abandons the property). And it is possible to have several occupiers (eg licensee) but clearly none of them have exclusivity. But if the occupation is exclusive then, certainly as far as deciding if a lease exists, it is equivalent to exclusive possession. And do not confuse the issue by worrying about rights restricted by the landlord. All leases have restrictions of some kind, and most commercial leases have many pages of restrictions. But none of this affects the quality of the lease or the concept of exclusive possession. In fact, it is possible for a lease to exist (and to qualify for protected status) where the tenant only has possession for a few months of the year.