Licence versus lease in market stalls: limited use, retained possession, and statutory control showed a licence, not tenancy.

An arrangement for occupation of market stalls was treated as a licence, not a lease, because the stall-holders had only limited use during fixed hours and no unrestricted possession or control. The market owners retained continuing possession and statutory responsibilities for cleanliness, disinfection, access control, and compliance with municipal conditions, showing that the word "rent" was used loosely as a fee. The presence of notice and repair clauses, and exclusive use during stated hours, did not by itself create a tenancy. The governing test was whether the parties clearly intended to part with possession; on the stated facts, that intention was not established.

---

---

Issues: Whether the stall-holders occupied the market stalls as lessees or only as licensees.

Analysis: The agreements, though using the word "rent", had to be read with the surrounding circumstances and the statutory obligations imposed on the market owners. The stall-holders could use the stalls only during fixed hours, could not remain in the market after closing time, and had no unrestricted possession or control of the premises. The market owners retained responsibility for cleanliness, disinfection, access control, and compliance with municipal conditions. Notice clauses and repair provisions were not inconsistent with a licence, and exclusive use during stated hours did not by itself establish a tenancy. The intention gathered from the documents and conduct of the parties showed that the owners did not part with possession.

Conclusion: The relationship was one of licence and not lease, and the word "rent" was used loosely as a fee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the occupier's use is confined to limited hours and subject to the grantor's statutory control and continuing possession, the arrangement is a licence unless the intention to create a lease is clearly established.

---