Prins v. Paternott – sllr 1994 volume 2 page 126

In the case between the Plaintiff-Appellant (the party seeking ejectment) and the Defendant-Respondent (the claimed tenant), the court addressed the issue of whether the defendant occupied the premises as a tenant or merely as a licensee under Section 10(1) of the Rent Act, No. 7 of 1972. It was held that the circumstances evidenced the existence of a tenancy, not a licence, with particular focus on the parties’ intention, exclusive possession, and payment of rent. The principle reaffirmed was that exclusive possession combined with regular payment of rent constitutes strong evidence of tenancy in the absence of contrary intention. Reliance was placed on established judicial precedents such as Cobb v. Lane, Errington v. Errington, Booker v. Palmer, Macroft Wagons Ltd. v. Smith, and Isaac v