In Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold, Fox LJ’s judgment confirms that based on principle, licences do not indicate “tenancy interest or interest in the land” on the part of the licencee; therefore, they cannot bind third parties as a result of this. On the other hand, when a piece of land is given out as a lease, the landlord does not have the power to terminate the occupancy of the land on short notice (Netlawman, 2011). This means that tenant has the right of occupancy until the period of lease elapses. However, in Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold, it is clear that when a tenant is expected not to pay a rent, there is not legal relationship between him/her and the landlord. The landlord holds the licence, which he or she can revoke at anytime. And when this happens, the tenant has no power to challenge this decision in court because there has been no legal agreement between the landlord and him/her. Invariably, the tenant has not expressed interest in the occupancy of the accommodation and hence could not claim any damages due to the revocation of the licence by the landlord. On the other hand, a tenant would show his or her interest in an accommodation by entering into a legal agreement.
For the flat Andrew rent out to Beth, Catherine and Daniel, he created an interest of collective leasees in them, meaning that if he decides to sell his freehold to the flats, Beth, Catherine and Daniel have to buy the flats and become collective landlords. Even though it was just an oral agreement, they have the right to stay in the accommodation for the length of time agreed upon in the terms of tenancy which, in this case, is two years. Oral agreements are as binding as the written ones; but since court require believable pieces of evidence, it may be difficult to prove in court that an agreement has truly been entered into between the landlord and the tenant (Williston and Lord, 1999). In other words, it will be impossible for Andrew to terminate th