“When a servant occupies, the word is used in a neutral sense- a house belonging to his master, his occupation may be no more than a service occupancy, but there are cases in which it is a service tenancy. These labels are taken from Thompsons (Funeral Furnishers) Ltd. v. Phillips, [1945] 2 All E.R. 49. In the words of Tindal, C. J., “there is no inconsistency in the relation of master and servant with that of landlord and tenant”: Hughes v. Chatham Overseers (1843), 5 M. & G. 54 at p. 77; 134 E.R. 479 at p. 488. In a service occupancy the servant is not the rateable occupier. The test is whether the occupation is subservient and necessary to the service. If that test is not passed in the case of the particular servant, he is the rateable occupier as a tenant at will, even though he does not pay rent for his occupation: see Smith v. Seghill Overseers (1875) L.R. 10 Q.B. 422.” #

Per VAHE ROBERT BAIRAMIAN, JSC in THE APPRAISER V N. R. C. (1964) LCER-294(SC) (Pp 11 – 11 Paras A – E) #