board. When the defendant purport to let the premises to a third party, the plaintiff sought an injunction to restrain the third party from occupying the room and the issue turned on whether he was a guest in a hotel or a tenant. The English Court of Appeal held that he was a tenant notwithstanding that the defendant called the house a hotel to which the Rent Act 1968 did not apply. The court chose to deal with the case on common sense lines. Adopting a robust view of the matter, Lord Denning MR said that the plaintiff was not a mere contractual licensee, but a tenant. He wrote: “A person has a right to „exclusive occupation‟ of a room when he is entitled to occupy it himself, and no one else is entitled to occupy it. Even though, as here, the chambermaids come in daily to make the bed and clean the room, and change the linen each week, nevertheless, the plaintiff had exclusive occupation of the room, that is, the right to occupy it to the exclusion of anyone else occupying it. In Tinuoye v. Akanni (1975) 3 CCHCJ 367, the premises let were a room and a shop. The tenant later partitioned the shop into two, using a portion for selling cement and provisions while his family lived and slept in the other portion. In the landlord claim to recover possession of the shop on the ground of personal use, the court held that the tenant was entitled to the protection of the Rent Control statute and so could take advantage of the issue of hardship. The use of part of the shop for residence turned the shop to a residential apartment to which the Rent Control statute then in force applied. Where an apartment is used partly as residential and partly as non-residential, the court is inclined to consider the apartment as residential. It would not consider which of the purposes