Palmer v McNamara (1990)

A single room occupied by the landlord was his dwelling-house despite that he did not sleep in it and it did not contain a cooker.

The landlord occupied a ground floor rear room in a flat he owned, and the tenant occupied a ground floor front room. The landlord was in occupation of this room when he granted the tenancy and he continued to occupy it, keeping belongings there such as a fridge, kettle, television and books. However, the landlord did not have a cooker as he had never learnt to cook, and if he wished to eat in the flat he bought take-away meals or food that did not need to be cooked. Due to a medical condition which prevented him from dressing or undressing himself, he did not sleep in the flat but went to stay in a friend’s spare room each night.
It was clear that a single room could be a dwelling-house, but it was suggested on behalf of the tenant that a room without a cooker could not be describer as a dwelling house. It was also contended that as the landlord did not sleep in his room he could not be said to be occupying it as his residence. The tenant therefore said that the landlord was not a resident landlord. 
This was rejected by the judge in the county court.

On appeal:
HELD: The Court of Appeal dismissed the tenant’s appeal. Using common sense, the room occupied by the landlord contained everything required to be a dwelling-house apart from a cooker, which the landlord did not want. ‘Occupy as his residence’ was interpreted as ‘occupy as his home’, and it was held that the landlord did occupy the room as his home despite not sleeping there. The landlord was regarded a resident landlord (within the meaning of the Rent Act 1977, which is very similar to that of the Housing Act 1988.)

Citation: Palmer v McNamara [1990] 23 H.L.R. 168