[15] The manner in which the case was put to me by Mr Mustafa was that he opened the case from the bar table, explaining what his client's storey was. Eventually he went into the witness box, swore that what he had told me from the bar table was true and correct and he also verified on oath the statement from which I have quoted. It was only at the very end of that process when, as it seemed to me, I was expressing some doubt as to whether the clear and concise undertaking referred to in his statement could give rise to any injunctive relief that he asserted the existence of the five year lease based upon a $45,000 annual rent. In the circumstances, this rendered the entire account of events relative to that dubious to my mind but given that this is not the time for making judgments as to credibility, I did not think it appropriate to reject his account on that score. However, the fact that it is intrinsically dubious leaves me with the greater confidence in rejecting it. One other matter which arises is, a consideration as to whether there are any persisting rights of overholding under the expired lease. Within the next few weeks a test case will be argued by Mr Golvan QC, dealing with the question as to whether an overholding clause under a lease for more than one year can ground the Tribunal's jurisdiction as distinct from a mere periodic tenancy existing outside the terms of any lengthier lease. For the purposes of this proceeding, I believe I should regard there to be an arguable case that the Tribunal has jurisdiction, if it appears that these tenants are still tenants pursuant to the overholding clause of the expired lease.