Service occupants of tied cottages have little or no protection against the owner repossessing their homes.

A notable exception from this rule is, of course, agricultural workers.

But how broad is that category? For instance, what of those employed to package produce for supermarket shelves, or mechanics who repair farm machinery? It would seem that these people may qualify, yet a gamekeeper will not.The Rent (Agriculture) Act 19 76 is a notoriously complex piece of legislation with a straightforward aim: to protect those working in agriculture from eviction from tied accommodation.

To qualify for protection under the Act, the worker must have been working full time in agriculture for at least 91 out of the last 104 weeks.

But once workers qualify they will continue to enjoy the protection of the Act even if their work changes so that they are not involved in agriculture.

If a worker dies, his or her spouse, if residing in the accommodation immediately before the worker's death, will continue to be protected by the Act, as indeed will other members of the family who had a licence to occupy the premises.Because of the extent of the protection, it is clearly important that an employer realises before offering tied accommodation which workers will be protected under the Act.

Agriculture is defined by the Act but not exhaustively and therefore the legislation can only be a guide and must be supplemented by a study of the case law.

Dairy farming, the keeping of livestock and the growing of consumable produce for sale or consumption is agriculture, as are forestry and market gardening or nursery grounds.

Livestock includes any animal kept for the production of food, skin or fur or other agricultural activity.

Although 'animal' includes birds, the Act expressly excludes fish.Although it may have been envisaged that the Act would apply to those workers whose wages were regulated by the Agriculture Wages Board, this proved not to be the case.

In 1978, the Court of Appeal held in the case of Lord Gledyne v Rapley [1978] 2 All ER 110 that a gamekeeper was not an agricultural worker.

This was because his primary role was to provide birds for sportsmen to shoot.

The fact that the birds were later sold as food was incidental.The following year another gamekeeper, coincidentally also appealing from the Salisbury County Court, took his case to the House of Lords via the Court of Appeal and, for the same reasons, their Lordships held that he was not employed in agriculture (Earl of Normanton v Giles [1980] 1 All ER 106).

Of greater general significance is the case of McPhail, McPhail v Greensmith, unreported, in which the Court of Appeal held on 6 August 1987 that a mechanic employed to repair and maintain farm tractors and machinery was an agricultural worker.

Lord Justice Fox reasoned that in modern conditions of mechanised farming the farm mechanic was as much employed in agriculture as the man who drove the tractor which he maintained.

How far this principle may be extended is unclear, but it is significant that the mechanic was based on the farm.

It is perhaps unlikely that support workers employed elsewhere would qualify for protection under the Act.

But workers who are employed to package produce are likely to be protected.

Lord Justice Fox made reference to the case of Prior 43 TLR 784, in which women employed to sort and cut and package fruit, plants and flowers were said to be involved in agriculture.

However, that case is merely persuasive as it concerned the Unemployment Insurance Act 1920.Lord Justice Fox, in his judgment in the McPhail case, made it clear that the court would look at the reality behind the contract.

The court would have held Mr McPhail to be a protected worker even if a full-time farm mechanic had not been protected.

This was because, despite the original contract of employment, Mr McPhail did a substantial amount of agricultural work on the farm, for instance ditching or loading grain.

As he was expected to do this type of work, by implication it was included in his original contract or his contract of service was altered by agreement.

Therefore, employers cannot escape the effects of the Rent (Agriculture) Act by the wording of the contract of employment.The Act restricts the grounds on which the owner can seek possession.

The courts are obliged to make a possession order if the owner originally occupied the property or purchased it with a view to retiring to it and he or she or a member of his or her family now wishes to reside there.

The other mandatory ground for ordering possession is when the premises are overcrowded.

The discretionary grounds for a possession order can broadly be put into two categories: first, if the occupier is neglecting his or her responsibilities - for instance not paying the rent or allowing the property or its contents to deteriorate or causing a nuisance to others.

The other ground for possession is that alternative accommodation is available to the occupier, which may be provided by the owner.

The court will have to be satisfied that this alternative accommodation meets the needs of the occupier having regard to a number of factors including the accommodation which is currently occupied.

Alternatively, it may be the local authority which has offered alternative accommodation to the occupier.Agricultural workers are in a stronger position than others seeking council accommodation as the authority is obliged to use its best endeavours to provide suitable alternative accommodation.

If the authority fails to do so, it may be subject to an action for breach of statutory duty.

This is, of course, to the advantage of both the landowner and the occupier.