Vol. 40 No. 23
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 1:—
Title. After the word "areas" in line 8 the words "and certain other tenants" inserted.
This amendment is necessitated by the alterations in the terms of the Bill which extends the Bill to certain other tenants.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 2:—
Section 1. The words "Town Tenants" deleted in line 20 and the words "Landlord and Tenant" substituted therefor.
This amendment is necessitated for the same reasons.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 3:—
Section 2. After paragraph (d), line 41, a new paragraph inserted as follows:—
"(c) such contract of tenancy is not a letting made for or dependent on the continuance of the tenant in any office, employment, or appointment."
This amendment excludes from the Bill houses which are let to persons solely because they occupy some particular office which, of course, on their leaving that particular office would be required by their successors.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 4:—
Section 3. After the word "were" in line 35 the words "or are" inserted.
The reason for this amendment is that there was a small drafting error. The section as it stands might be held to apply only to existing houses or buildings. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the section shall apply to buildings provided after the passing of the Bill.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 5:—
Section 5, sub-section (3). Two new sub-sections inserted before the sub-section as follows:—
"(3) The Minister may, after consultation with the committee mentioned in Section 65 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924 (No. 10 of 1924), make rules of court for the purposes of this Act and, in particular, for regulating the practice and procedure under this Act.
(4) Every rule of court made under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and if either such House shall, within the next twenty-one days on which such House has sat after such rule is laid before it, pass a resolution annulling such rule, such rule shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder."
This amendment is to enable rules of court to be made. Under Section 7 there is power in the Minister for Justice to make regulations, but there is no provision for the making of rules, and there might be a difficulty as to the making of rules of court unless these provisions were inserted.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 6:—
Section 11, sub-section (1). After the word "case" in line 52 the following words inserted:—"shall be such sum as may be agreed on between the landlord and the tenant and in default of such agreement."
This enables the parties to settle their case out of court if they so wish. It might not be clear that they would have the right to do so if this amendment were not inserted.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 7:—
Section 12, sub-section (3). After the word "lease" in line 42 the following words inserted:—"for a life or lives in being (either without a term of years or with a concurrent term of which less than twenty-five years are unexpired) or under a lease for a term."
This is merely a verbal alteration in drafting, and deals with the existence of a certain class of lease for a life or lives. A similar omission occurs later, but there are amendments now setting that right also.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 8:—
New section. Before Section 13 a new section inserted as follows:—
"13.—(1) Where a sanitary authority serves under the Public Health Acts, 1878 to 1931, or the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Acts, 1890 to 1921, a notice on the tenant of a tenement requiring the execution by such tenant of any work which is an improvement within the meaning of this Act, such tenant shall, within three days after the service of such notice on him, serve on the landlord of such tenement a notice (in this Act referred to as a sanitary work notice) in the prescribed form stating the facts of the service of such notice by such sanitary authority and stating the material portions of such notice.
(2) Where a sanitary work notice is served on the landlord of a tenement such landlord may, within three days after such service, serve on the tenant of such tenement a notice (in this Act referred to as a sanitary work undertaking) in the prescribed form undertaking to execute such work in consideration of either (as such landlord shall state in such notice) a specified increase of rent or an increase of rent to be fixed by the Court.
(3) Wherever the landlord of a tenement has served under and in accordance with this section a sanitary work undertaking on the tenant of such tenement the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—
(a) the service of such undertaking shall have the same effect as the service on such tenant of an improvement undertaking, and the provisions of this Act in relation to an improvement undertaking shall apply accordingly; and
(b) such tenant may serve on the sanitary authority a copy of such sanitary work undertaking and thereupon the obligation to comply with the notice served by the sanitary authority and the liability for failure to comply with such notice shall be transferred to and become and be the obligation and liability of such landlord in exoneration of such tenant.
(4) Where a tenant has served a sanitary work notice on his landlord and such landlord has not, within three days after such service, served on such tenant a sanitary work undertaking in respect of such sanitary work notice, such tenant shall be entitled to execute as an improvement the work mentioned in the notice the service of which by the sanitary authority occasioned the service of such sanitary work notice."
I move the following amendment to the Seanad amendment No. 8:—
To delete the words "in the prescribed form" where they occur in sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of the proposed new section.
This amendment and the other amendment deal with the same question by enabling the owner of premises to carry out repairs when notice has been served on the occupier by the sanitary authorities. In the ordinary way the sanitary authorities serve notice on either the owner or the occupier, and it is advisable in most cases that the owner should have an opportunity of carrying out the necessary repairs, because it very often happens that the same repairs have to be done to a row of houses. The work could be more efficiently and more economically done by the owner than by the occupier. The effect of the amendment is that the occupier must serve notice upon the owner and give him an opportunity of carrying out the repairs. The notice given by the sanitary authorities is always a very short notice, and consequently this amendment necessitates the tenant serving notice on the landlord within three days. The sanitary authorities never give more than six days' notice. There are some words here which I would like to have cut out, and I know the Seanad would agree to it. These words are to the effect that the tenant should serve notice on the landlord "in the prescribed form." It might be difficult for the tenant, having only three days, to serve notice "in the prescribed form." I think if he served notice it would be sufficient. I would suggest that the House should accept the amendment striking out the words "in the prescribed form."
I am not quite clear that the purpose of the amendment is wholly as good as the Minister suggests. As the Bill stands, if a tenant is served with notice by the sanitary authorities, requiring him to carry out certain work which would be an improvement within the meaning of the Act, such tenant would be entitled to get compensation for the improvement at the termination of the tenancy. If this new section, with the consequential amendments, is inserted the tenant would not be entitled to get that compensation unless he had served notice on the landlord, had given the landlord an opportunity of undertaking the improvement work, and had received the certificate that is suggested in another amendment. It is quite possible that many cases may arise where tenants on receiving notice from the sanitary authorities, in the belief that they are required to do so at once, will execute repairs. If they neglect to avail of the provisions of the Bill either through negligence or ignorance of its provisions they may consequently find themselves deprived of the right to compensation for such improvements when their tenancy terminates. The procedure set out here seems reasonable enough, but I do not think a tenant should be deprived of the right he has under the Bill for improvements effected, as the result of notice received from the sanitary authority, if he fails to give notice to the landlord within three days so that the landlord would have an opportunity of undertaking the work.
There is one thing the Deputy must consider. If a tenant carries out improvements which the landlord should have carried out he has always a claim against the landlord, because it is part of the landlord's contract with the tenant to keep the exterior of the house in repair. That is quite apart from this Bill altogether.
I understand.
The tenant has got his remedy. I think on the whole there is a good deal to be said on both sides. I recognise that, because the period is short, but for the carrying out of sanitary improvements I think it is better that the occupier should be compelled to let the owner know that such notice has been served and give him an opportunity of doing the work. Really the proper thing is that the owner should do so.
I am not objecting to the owner carrying out the work but, by a subsequent amendment, the tenant may be deprived of his rights. A sub-section of Section 16 at present provides that the tenant shall not be entitled to compensation unless he gave the landlord notice in respect of improvements carried out in consequence of an order from the sanitary authority. It is proposed to amend that sub-section and to provide that the tenant shall not be entitled to compensation unless he has given notice within three days. If that were deleted and the tenant merely given an opportunity of bringing the notice to the landlord, that would be all right, but I do not think it is fair in all the circumstances that the tenant should be deprived of any right to compensation if for any reason he fails to do so.
The trouble is there is no other penalty that you could impose except loss of compensation.
That is not altogether my point. The tenant may be glad to avail of this section and to get the landlord to carry out the improvements, subject to an agreed increase of rent or something of that kind. The point I am trying to safeguard is that the tenant should not be subjected to the penalty of deprivation of the right to compensation if he failed to afford that opportunity to the landlord.
If the words "in the prescribed form" are taken out will that mean verbal notice will be sufficient?
If so there would be a great danger of disputes.
I think it is quite clear that notice would have to be in writing.
Could not the words "in writing" be inserted?
If the House wishes I would be willing.
In support of the point of view put forward by Deputy Lemass I am sure the Minister is aware that under the existing law, if a notice is served by the sanitary authority to remove a dangerous wall or roof or something like that of some some magnitude, the tenant is allowed to deduct from the rent the amount that he has paid for the work. In the ordinary way the Minister's argument does not appear to be necessarity opposed to what Deputy Lemass said. If the tenant gets such a notice as I mentioned, and if the landlord refuses or fails to comply with it, the tenant is made responsible. He can do the work and recoup himself by deducting the amount from the rent. That is the position already, and to my mind it strengthens the point of view made by Deputy Lemass.
I do not think so, because the tenant has still his existing remedies. They are not taken away by this Bill, and in that matter he does not require any protection under this Bill at all.
I was referring to a type of improvement which a tenant under the terms of a tenancy would be required to carry out and for the cost of which he could not proceed against the landlord, but which nevertheless would be an improvement within the Act and increase the letting value of the house. In the majority of cases the work done under a notice served by the sanitary authority is not an improvement at all. It may be a notice to have a yard whitewashed or something like that. Occasionally there will be cases where the tenant who is responsible for the interior preservation of the house may be called upon to do work which would be an improvement within the meaning of the section, and for which he could get compensation under the Bill, and for which he can still get compensation, even though the Bill were amended as the Minister suggests, with this exception: that he will be debarred if he fails to give the landlord an opportunity of doing the work.
Would not the point be better explained in this way: Supposing a tenant is compelled to put down a new flooring and that his lease expires long before that flooring, with ordinary wear and tear, is worn out; there is there a dispute between the landlord and the tenant as to whether the tenant is entitled to compensation. The tenant, in fact, gives back the premises in a better condition than when he got it. In that way the point raised by Deputy Lemass is worthy of consideration. There are disputes between landlords and tenants as to whether the tenants are entitled to recover the whole cost of keeping houses in repair. Even on a lease of five years a new floor may have to be put into a house, but no tenant is liable for putting in a new floor.
I think every tenant will know that before he can get compensation for improvements he must serve notice on the landlord. Possibly the only thing that a tenant may not know is that the time for giving notice is so short. I do not see how we can get over the question. I do not think putting in a fresh floor would be an improvement or would come under the Bill.
Under the existing law the putting in of a new floor is considered an improvement. If a new floor is put into an apartment in a slum district or into a small cottage by the landlord, if he seeks to increase the rent he must show that the new floor could be considered an improvement which would warrant an increase of rent for a period. If that is so, surely it would be an improvement where a tenant with a lease for a few years to run puts in a new floor.
We are dealing with amendment 10 rather than with amendment 8 now.
They are connected.
Deputy Good will appreciate the point.
I would appreciate it in quite a different sense. The difficulty is this: that if there is a covenant in a lease to maintain property and to hand it over in good order and repair at the termination of the lease, it would be the duty of the tenant to put in a new floor even supposing that the lease had only a month to run.
On a five years lease?
It all depends; if the tenant is bound to maintain the premises in good repair and to hand them over, even if there was only a week to run, it is a liability on him.
Even if such an improvement is made at the request of the sanitary authorities? Is it not the landlord's duty?
We have been sidetracking to some extent. The point I want to raise is whether there can be a question whether the work done was an improvement under the Act and if the tenant would be ordinarily entitled to compensation. There is an amendment here which proposes to deprive him of that compensation if within three days after receipt of a notice from the sanitary authority he fails to give notice to the landlord. I think, in view of the shortness of the three-day period suggested, the tenant may misunderstand the purpose of the order from the sanitary authority and fail in his point, by proceeding at once to execute the repairs.
It is proposed that amendment No. 8 should be accepted in its amended form, and that amendment 10 be not accepted. Could we not amend amendment 8 now? It is proposed in amendment 8, which was inserted in the Seanad, in line 7, after the word "notice" to insert the words "in writing," in line 8 to delete the words "in the prescribed form." Is sub-section (2) being amended also?
The words "prescribed form" are not so important in sub-section (2).
If the landlord has to serve this notice on a tenant it should be in some form prescribed, so that the tenant will understand the position.
I do not mind deleting the words there.
Amendment 8, made in the Seanad, has been amended in sub-section (1), line 7, by inserting after the word "notice" the words "in writing" and in line 8 by deleting the words "in the prescribed form." The Minister is not moving that part of his amendment which refers to sub-section (2).
I move that the Dáil agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 9:—
Section 16, sub-section (5). The figures "1930" deleted in line 52 and the figures "1931" substituted therefor.
This merely inserts the figure "1931" instead of "1930," because at the time the Bill first came before the House the Public Health Expenses Bill, 1931, which completes the code, had not become law.
I move that the Dáil agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 10:
Section 16, sub-section (5). The following words added at the end of the sub-section:—"but a tenant shall not be entitled to compensation in respect of such work unless such tenant has served on his landlord a sanitary work notice in respect of such work and has become entitled under this Act to execute such work as an improvement."
This is a point upon which I would ask the Dáil not to agree with the Seanad. I think the tenant should be allowed to retain his right to compensation for work executed at his expense and which increases the letting value of the tenement, whether or not he gives this three days' notice to the landlord. There can be no question about it that the tenant was required by law to carry out the work and that the landlord is going to benefit by the work. Under these circumstances I think we should take no risk whatever of the tenant being deprived of his right to compensation.
I see the force of the Deputy's argument. On the other hand, we have given, very rightly, all through the Bill an opportunity to the owner of the house to put the house right. He always gets his choice of doing it rather than of the tenant doing it. I think that is correct. I think normally where notice has been served by the sanitary authority he should have an equal right. There is nothing, if we take out this sub-section, which compels the tenant even to serve notice on the landlord. As I said before, the work will not be so well done, if it is a general improvement, by individuals as by the landlord.
I agree that if we take this out there will be nothing which will compel the tenant to serve notice, but I think the penalty for failure to serve notice is too great. I think there will be an inducement to the tenant in any event to serve notice, because in consequence of the service of the notice he can get the work carried out at the landlord's expense. In other words, the landlord may do it himself in order to avoid paying compensation later on. In any event, if the tenant fails to serve notice the punishment should fit the crime, and I think the punishment is too heavy for the crime.
The Deputy cannot suggest any other punishment?
It is probably too late now to make a suggestion of this kind, but I think the difficulty would have been met if a provision had been made to compel the local authority in serving this notice to call attention to this section of the Town Tenants Act, because, theoretically, although everybody must know the law, to assume that every tenant will know the law and will be aware of the disadvantage accruing to himself when he comes in ten years' time to look for compensation for improvements, is assuming too much altogether. It is not practicable, to say the least of it. If in the administration of the Act, the public authorities will include some advice to the tenant, a notice calling his attention to this provision, at least it would be better than the provision as it stands, but even with that it would be unsatisfactory.
I considered what the Deputy says about putting in a provision that the sanitary authority should serve notice at the same time, but on consideration and discussion with the Department of Local Government and considering the existing sanitary laws we came to the conclusion that as a matter of compulsory by-law that cannot be done. I fancy that in the working of the Act the sanitary authorities will, as a matter of fact, give intimation.
I feel so strongly that that proposal is wrong that I would be inclined to divide the House on it. I think it is most unfair to the tenant that he should be deprived of compensation because of his failure to act within three days. During the course of the passage of the Bill through Committee Stage, we considered the possibility of the landlord who might be absent from town or who, through illness, might be unable to carry out the requirements of the statute, and we extend the period in order to facilitate him. In this case we cannot extend it, but I do say that we should consider the modification of the penalty for failure to comply with the statute. If we cannot modify it we should remove the penalty altogether, seeing that it will mean no hardship to anybody to remove this penalty on the tenant. The landlord is not going to have to pay anything for which he will not be getting the full benefit.
Theoretically what the Deputy says may take place, but practically I do not think there is any danger of it.
I entirely disagree with the Minister. I think it is much more likely that it will take place if notice is served on the tenant and he does not know that in five or six years he may suffer if he does not, within three days, serve on the landlord notice that he has to carry out these improvements. I agree with Deputy Lemass that the penalty under which the tenant would find himself as a result of neglect to serve this notice within three days on the landlord is altogether too great in the circumstances.
I put this suggestion to the Minister. I do not know whether it would be possible to amend the amendment here so as to provide that the burden of proof would be on the landlord to show the judge of the Circuit Court that he had been damaged in some way as a result of the default of the tenant, and in the event of the landlord not being able to prove that, that then the tenant should be entitled to compensation.
There might be something in that suggestion if it were worked out, but I think it would hardly be possible to work it out now.
I do not think we should allow our anxiety to get the Bill through to prevent us doing something that we feel should be done. If it were impossible to embody some such suggestion as Deputy Lemass has made, could not we leave over this amendment for a few hours to allow the Minister to look into it?
I do not think really that it will work out in any hardship.
Would the Minister leave the amendment over until the end of the discussion on the Bill?
Very well.
We can go through the amendments and leave the Report over until the end of the day's business. If any amendment is worked out in the meantime we can take it on Report. We will take this amendment now as being agreed to on that understanding.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 11:—
Section 17. Before sub-section (4) two new sub-sections inserted as follows:—
"(4) Where the tenant of a tenement executes work on such tenement in pursuance of an order of a sanitary authority under the Public Health Acts, 1878 to 1931, or the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Acts, 1890 to 1921, and such work is an improvement within the meaning of this Act, such tenant shall not be entitled to an improvement certificate under the foregoing provisions of this section in respect of such improvement, but shall be entitled to obtain from such sanitary authority, within six months after the due completion of such work in accordance with such order, a certificate (in this Act referred to as a sanitary improvement certificate) in writing in the prescribed form certifying that such work was executed in pursuance of and completed in accordance with an order of such sanitary authority.
(5) A sanitary improvement certificate shall, as against the landlord of the tenement to which it relates, be prima facie evidence of the matters which such certificate purports to certify.”
This amendment is consequential on the other. It allows the tenant to get an improvement certificate from the sanitary authority.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendments Nos. 12, 13, 14 and 15:—
Section 17, sub-section (4). After the word "landlord" in line 30 the words "or sanitary authority" inserted.
Section 17, sub-section (4). After the word "certificate" in line 31 the words "or sanitary improvement certificate (as the case may be)" inserted.
Section 17, sub-section (4). After the word "him" in line 32 the words "or them" inserted.
Section 17, sub-section (4). After the word "him" in line 34 the words "or them" inserted.
These are all amendments which are entirely consequential upon amendment 11. In fact, they are necessary to make the section sense.
I move the following amendment to the Seanad amendment:—
To delete the word "twenty" and to substitute therefor the word "thirty."
As the House is aware, when the Bill went up to the Seanad the period was in certain circumstances a period of forty years. The Seanad altered that period of forty years to twenty years. Amendments 16 and 17 were so closely connected in the debate in the Seanad that I think it will be necessary for us to consider these two amendments in conjunction here also. Amendment No. 17 from the Seanad reads:—
Section 18, sub-section (1). The word "predecessors in title" deleted in line 58 and the words "predecessor in title if the immediate predecessor in title was the wife or husband of such tenant" substituted therefor.
To that amendment I propose a further amendment as follows:—
That the amendment be not agreed to, and that the following amendment be inserted in lieu thereof:—
In Section 18, sub-section (1), page 10, line 58, after the word "title" to insert the words "and such tenement was not acquired by such tenant or any of his predecessors in title by purchase for valuable consideration within such period of thirty years."
As the Bill left the House the words "predecessors in title" were undefined and they meant and would, of course, include a predecessor in title, even though he had purchased from a predecessor in title for valuable consideration, so that if a tenant had been thirty years in possession his thirty years' occupation would inure to the benefit of the purchaser. The Seanad cut down the period of forty to twenty years and deleted the words "predecessors in title," substituting the words "predecessor in title if the immediate predecessor in title was the wife or husband of such tenant." I think that that cutting down is entirely wrong because that would mean that a house might be in occupation of three generations of the same family. It might go from a grandfather through his son to a grandson. A man might be reared and live all his life in the house and then possibly ten years after his father's death might find he had acquired no rights there at all. The Town Tenants Commission recommended a period of forty years because they thought that a person after forty years had come to regard a place as his home. Now the very class of person that would be cut out by this amendment is the very class of person in a great number of instances that they wished to benefit. What I would like the House to do, and what I would ask them to do, is to meet the Seanad half way and to substitute the word "thirty" for "twenty," and to enlarge the words "predecessors in title" so that they might include everybody except predecessors in title by purchase for valuable consideration. Thus if a son succeeded his father or if a daughter succeeded her father they would have the family right carried on.
I do not think there is any necessity to spend much time debating again the question as to whether the period of occupation should be forty years, thirty years or twenty years. The question was debated for many hours when the Bill was before us on Committee and it became quite obvious that there was little possibility of reconciling the different views expressed on that occasion. Our views have not changed. The Minister has slightly modified his but ours remain as they were. We think that twenty years is too long a period but we think, however, that twenty years is better than thirty years, and that thirty years is better than forty. We propose to vote against the Minister's amendment, which means that the Bill will remain as amended by the Seanad. If we are defeated on that we propose to support the Minister's amendment as against the proposal in the original draft.
Again on the question of the other amendment which the Seanad linked up with this one relating to years, I think we have got to consider them separately. The question of the intentions of the Seanad or the question of the bargain arrived at does not concern us. We have to produce the best Bill possible. We have to consider the period of years in relation to the Bill and we have to consider the question of "predecessors in title" in relation to the Bill. It seems to me that there is no reason for narrowing down the meaning of the words. I think that the Bill as it left this House is better than it would be if amended as the Seanad suggests, or as the Minister suggests. The term "predecessors in title" has its full meaning; and it is not intended to restrict it so as to exclude any persons whether they are people who have procured their title by purchase for valuable consideration or by inheritance. The amendment inserted by the Seanad is ridiculous. No matter what happens we have got to defeat that. Its effect would be to exclude a very large class of deserving people, particularly the class to whom the Minister has referred, that is, people who inherited the title to residence from fathers or mothers as the case may be. The amendment which the Minister has proposed is certainly an improvement upon the Seanad's proposition, but it would be much better to leave the Bill as it originally was. No case has been made against the proposal to give this right to a new tenancy to a person who has secured his title through purchase for valuable consideration.
Deputy Lemass's position is now rather involved. He is going to vote against the amendment in the Seanad.
No, I did not say that. I said against the Minister's amendment. I said I am going to vote against the Minister's amendment to the Seanad amendment. I think the Seanad amendment is the better and I propose to try and keep it, as the Seanad has amended it in respect to the period of years.
The Seanad amendment is bad and the Minister's amendment is not much better. I was in favour of 20 years in the original draft of the Bill, but if the Seanad amendment which Deputy Lemass is prepared to support were carried, it would, as the Minister has stated, exclude——
I am only talking of the Seanad amendment with respect to the period of years.
16 and 17 are connected.
I understand that if the Seanad amendment were agreed to, it would mean that only the husband or wife——
That is amendment 17.
We are discussing both of them together.
I am opposed to 17.
I am sorry, I misunderstood.
Before the amendment is put, would the Minister say whether he has any statistics as to the number of houses to which this amendment applies. It seems to me that we are legislating for two quite different classes. There are business houses in regard to which assignments are quite common. But with regard to the ordinary private house in the suburbs of Dublin, does the Minister think that these houses come within the purview of this Bill at all? Is it not the case that the great bulk of these houses are let in a casual way without assignment of title, and that they do not come under this provision? Where are the exceptions? What proportion are they of the ordinary private houses of Dublin? Can the Minister give us any information so that we may see what it is we are legislating upon, or how far our legislation touches the actual state of affairs?
I do not follow Deputy Moore at all, because if a person remains in possession of a house and dies, then the house goes to his personal representative if he has not left it by will, and that personal representative, or the persons entitled, such as his children, will remain on there as persons taking otherwise than as purchasers for valuable consideration. Everybody who is in possession of a house except by purchase, would come under these words which I propose to have inserted. Personally, I do not think that there is such a terrible amount of importance about the period, or that it affects quite such a number of houses as one would think it would, because I am very much inclined to think that if you stick to the 20 years you will discover that at the end of about 17 or 18 years occupation there will be a vast number of notices to quit, in other words, that landlords will endeavour to cut down the tenancies so that the tenants will not acquire the right. Of course, it might be said that that would be applicable to a period of 30 years or a period of 40 years also, but it is less applicable to the longer period than it is to the shorter period. After very careful consideration the Commission recommended 40 years. I am now meeting the opposite view as fairly as I can in offering the compromise of 30.
I desire to say a few words with regard to amendment 17. The Minister's amendment would, if I understand it aright, exclude from the benefit of this Statute a son or a daughter who took over an aged parent's tenancy on the terms that that parent would be supplied with board and lodging for the remainder of his or her life. If it would capture a case such as that, it seems to me that it would work a hardship. If what the Minister is aiming at by his amendment to No. 17 is to prevent a traffic in houses, the prevention of ordinary sale and purchase of houses, I can see that the Minister's amendment may be aimed at a possible evil. But, as the Minister will, I think, agree, the expression "valuable consideration" will include any benefit which one member of a family even informally stipulated to give to another member of the family in consideration of getting a tenancy. We know that that occurs. We know that the old father or the old mother makes an offer of a tenancy to a son or daughter on marriage, and that there is an agreement that the son or daughter will provide board and lodgings. That is "valuable consideration," and would, I think, exclude such son or daughter from the benefit of this Act. Can that be intended? For that reason I would appeal to the Minister to adhere to his Bill as it stood. The expression "predecessors in title" which we find in the Bill itself is one easy to understand and easy to interpret, and it is only in the most unusual case that it can possibly affect a landlord adversely. I doubt that even the Minister, from his own experience either in this House or at the Bar, could suggest many illustrations of hardship that would inure to a landlord if the Bill as it stands passes. However that might be I ask the Minister to consider whether his amendment as framed, with a highly technical phrase like "valuable consideration," would not work real hardship in very many cases.
I agree entirely with the Deputy on his interpretation of the law, and I would agree with him that it would work out a hardship in a great number of cases if he were dealing either with business premises or with country farms, because that handing over of the tenancy to a son in consideration of support is, I think, entirely confined to country farms, though it may extend to business premises in the towns. Business premises are completely safeguarded, entirely apart from this. There may be a very odd case, though I do not know of any, of a tenant handing over the interest in a small house or a large house in a city to a son or daughter in consideration of support. I have not come across such a case. There is great difficulty in having a formula that will exclude everything that you may wish to exclude, and include everything that you may wish to include, but I think "purchase for valuable consideration" will cover the overwhelming bulk of the cases that I wish to safeguard.
We are considering amendment 16 made in the Seanad. The Minister proposes to delete the word "twenty" in the amendment and substitute therefor the word "thirty," and then agree with the Seanad amendment as amended. I propose to put the question that the word "twenty" stand. If that is carried, then we will, in effect, have agreed with the amendment made in the Seanad, although another formal motion will be necessary. The Minister will be voting, níl. If the níls have it, then it will be open to the Minister to move that the word "thirty" be there inserted, and on that, if I understand Deputy Lemass aright, there will be agreement. We shall have agreed to the Seanad amendment as amended.
That is right.
Amendment 17 has already been moved. Shall I put it?
What would the procedure be if we agree to the Minister's amendment? Will the question then be put—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad amendment as amended?"
I am prepared to put this in two questions if necessary, that is: "That the Committee do not agree with the Seanad in the amendment made," and then take the amendment moved by the Minister in substitution.
We have already discussed the matter.
Has the Minister moved his amendment?
My amendment has been moved.
The Minister is moving that following amendment be inserted in lieu of the Seanad amendment:—"In Section 18, sub-section (1), page 10, line 58, after the word ‘title' to insert the words ‘and such tenement was not acquired by such tenant or any of his predecessors in title by purchase for valuable consideration within such period of thirty years.'"
Is it in order for the Minister to move that amendment at this stage?
Yes.
Why?
The Deputy is aware that I never answer a question like that. If he suggests why not I shall rule on that.
We are considering a number of amendments from the Seanad. Is it in order for any Deputy or Minister to propose additional amendments to those which come from the Seanad for consideration?
Yes—if the proposed amendments are relevant to those made in the Seanad. It is in order to move to disagree with a Seanad amendment, or to move to agree with a Seanad amendment with a relevant amendment, or to reject the Seanad amendment and propose in lieu of the Seanad amendment a relevant amendment to the Seanad amendment. The Minister is proposing to leave out the Seanad amendment and is moving an alternative amendment to the amendment made in the Seanad, and that if carried will go back to the Seanad.
If we reject the Minister's amendment, the Bill remains as it was when sent to the Seanad?
Yes. If we reject the amendment we tell the Seanad that we do not accept their amendment simpliciter and propose no other amendment.
We would like to know if the Minister has any argument in favour of this amendment on its merits other than just a bargain in the Seanad.
I entered into no bargain in the Seanad, I can assure the Deputy. These amendments which we have been discussing were carried in the Seanad in the teeth of my opposition on the proposal of Senator Johnson. In favour of this would come up an argument such as that put forward in the Dáil by Deputy Moore and put forward again in the Seanad that a person might be 38 years in possession and then sell, and that a mere stranger could come in and, by purchase, acquire a special right. The real meaning of the right given by "30 years in possession" is that a person has been living in a house for a considerable time or that his predecessors have been there for a considerable time and the place as a home has an extra sentimental value to him. That is the reason. That would not occur if a purchaser had come in and bought the premises only a year or so ago.
The position is that a person in continuous occupation of the house for 28 or 29 years if he is required to vacate the house and sell his interest cannot, if the Minister's amendment is carried, get an enhanced price arising out of his long occupation. Whereas if the amendment is rejected the tenant, who certainly has some claim in respect of the house because of his long occupation, might be able to secure an enhanced price because he will be able to give to the new purchaser this right to a tenancy after the expiration of a year or two. As we would be doing a tenant of 28 years occupation a very considerable injustice by denying to him the statutory right of tenancy I think we should at least give him the small compensation involved in the increased price which he may get if he has to sell before the 30 years.
That is the point I wish to make. If a man does secure a valuable right within a few years of the 30 years period now coming into operation he has probably paid for that. That has been a consideration in the bargain between him and the tenant in occupation for 28 years. The man in occupation for 28 years has benefited by the fact because he has been able to exact the higher price from the purchaser. You are depriving him of that right now.
The opposite case is more frequent where a short term is to run and that short term is probably sold for a small sum. It is now proposed to hand over in such a case a valuable right purchased for a very small sum.
Unless the tenant transfers his interest there is no predecessor in title. This section does not operate.
If the Minister's amendment is accepted that blot will be removed. If you pass this Bill as it stood what was bought for a song would become immediately very valuable.
Not at all. Obviously it will not be bought for a song if it is of value.
The Committee has decided not to agree with amendment 17 made by the Seanad. The question now is that the following amendment be inserted in lieu thereof.
In Section 18, sub-section (1), page 10, line 58, after the word "title" to insert the words "and such tenement was not acquired by such tenant or any of his predecessors in title by purchase for valuable consideration within such period of 30 years."
I move: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 18:—
Section 21, sub-section (4). The word ‘institution' deleted in line 22 and the word ‘granting' substituted therefor."
This amendment substitutes "granting" of the tenant's application for "institution" of the tenant's application. That is desirable for several reasons. In the first place it gives an opportunity to the landlord and tenant to agree, and consequently if the word "institution" stood and the tenant's application for a new tenancy was refused he might lose altogether his right of compensation.
Amendments 19, 20 and 21 are very closely connected. I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendments 19, 20 and 21.
Section 25, sub-section (1). After the word "statement" in line 29 the words "in duplicate" inserted.
Section 25, sub-section (1). After the word "statement" in line 37 the words "in duplicate" inserted.
Section 25, sub-section (2). After the word "send" in line 52 the words "one duplicate of" inserted.
The reason for the application being sent in duplicate is so that the Circuit Court should retain one copy and at the same time a copy is to be sent to the registrar of the Valuation Office. This is desirable. It is only a matter of procedure. It is advisable there should be three copies.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 22:—
Section 26. Before paragraph (e) a new paragraph inserted as follows:—
"(e) where the court makes an order under this section for the grant to a tenant of a new tenancy in a tenement and the landlord or any of the landlords of such tenement cannot be found or is a person under a disability or in a fiduciary capacity or possessed of a limited estate only, the court may make such order as the court thinks proper to enable such new tenancy to be granted notwithstanding such impossibility of being found, disability, fiduciary capacity, or limited estate, as the case may be."
This is an amendment which deals with the circumstances in which the court is granting a new tenancy, but the landlord either cannot be found or is not in a position to grant a new tenancy. Similar provisions were already included in Parts V and VI of the Bill.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 23:—
Section 30, sub-section (1). The words "the next following" deleted in line 26 and the words "any other" substituted therefor.
This is merely a verbal amendment. It is necessitated because amendment 24 suggests the insertion of a new section.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 24:—
New section. Before Section 33 a new section inserted as follows:—
"33. Where the tenancy of a tenant in a tenement is terminated by the termination of the tenancy of the landlord of such tenement before the normal expiration of the term of such last-mentioned tenancy, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say—
(a) notice of intention to claim relief may be served by such tenant after such termination but not more than one month after such tenant quits such tenement;
(b) such landlord shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed to be a landlord having no reversion in such tenement."
This amendment protects the rights of the sub-tenant in occupation when the tenancy of his landlord is terminated before the normal expiration. The amendment provides that in such a case, notice of intention to claim relief may be served by the tenant and such landlord be deemed to be a landlord having no reversion in such tenement. That is to say, the claim of the tenant for relief will lie against the superior landlord. It deals with the case where a middleman has failed to pay the rent, to observe the covenants of his lease and has been ejected. In that case it protects the right of the tenant.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 25:—
Section 37. After the word "tenement" in line 20 the words "whether a decree in ejectment has been made against such tenant or not" inserted.
This amendment is very similar to the previous one. There is probably no necessity for the words "whether a decree of ejectment has been made against such tenant or not, but they are put in to make assurance doubly sure.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 26:—
Section 45, sub-section (1). The word "five" deleted in line 1 and the word "seven" substituted therefor.
This is necessitated because there was an amendment in the Dáil moved by Deputy Geoghegan that the termination should be within five years. In consequence, what had been five previously is to be extended to seven and what was three becomes five.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 27:—
Section 45. A new sub-section added at the end of the section as follows:—
"(4) Where a building lease has expired within five years before the passing of this Act and the lessee thereunder is at the passing of this Act in possession of the land comprised in such building lease either under a yearly tenancy arising by implication from the acts of the parties or as a tenant at will or without obtaining any new tenancy, such lessee and every person in possession of such land or any part thereof under a yearly tenancy which arose on the expiration of a proprietary lease by implication from the acts of the parties shall, during six months after the passing of this Act, severally have the same rights in relation to obtaining a reversionary lease under this Part of this Act as they would respectively have had within seven years before the expiration of such building lease if this Act had then been in force."
The object of this amendment is to provide against a case of hardship where a building lease expired at any time within the last five years, where the lessee or the sub-lessee who held happens to be still in possession of the land or of any part of the land comprised in the building lease. It is rather transitory in its nature.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 28:—
Section 48, sub-section (2). The sub-section deleted and the following new sub-section substituted therefor:—
"(2) Where, after the passing of this Act, a lease (in this section referred to as the statutory reversionary lease) of any land is made by way of reversionary lease to a building lease by a person who is bound to make and to a person who is entitled (either with or without obtaining the consent of another person) to obtain under this Part of this Act a lease of such land by way of reversionary lease to such building lease, the following leases shall be void and of no effect, that is to say, every lease which
(a) is made after the passing of this Act and either before or after the making of the statutory reversionary lease, and
(b) comprises the land or any part of the land comprised in the statutory reversionary lease, and
(c) is made by way of reversionary lease to the said building lease, and
(d) is made by a person who is bound under this Part of this Act to grant a reversionary lease of the land comprised in such building lease, and
(e) is made to a person who either is not entitled to obtain under this Part of this Act a reversionary lease of the land or any part of the land comprised in the statutory reversionary lease or (being entitled so to obtain such reversionary lease only on obtaining the consent of the person to whom the statutory reversionary lease is made) did not obtain such consent."
This is really a purely drafting amendment. The draftsman thought that these words carry out the intention of the original section better. It makes no alteration in the principle of the Bill.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 29:—
New section. Before Section 49 a new section inserted as follows:—
"49.—Where a building lease is terminated (before the expiration thereof by effluxion of time) by ejectment for non-payment of rent, breach of covenant or otherwise or by the exercise by the lessor of a power of re-entry for breach of a covenant or a condition contained in such building lease, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say—
(a) no sub-lease of the land or any part of the land comprised in such building lease which is an immediate sub-lease under such building lease and is a proprietary lease shall be terminated by such ejectment or re-entry,
(b) the person who would but for this section become entitled by virtue of such ejectment or re-entry to the possession of the land comprised in such sub-lease shall become and be entitled to the reversion on such sub-lease and to the benefit of the rent reserved by and the covenants and conditions contained in such sub-lease,
(c) such sub-lease shall become and be a building lease within the meaning of this Part of this Act and this Part of this Act shall apply in relation thereto accordingly."
When a building lease is terminated by ejectment for non-payment of rent or for a breach of a covenant all subleases would terminate. The object of the amendment is to protect the sub-lessees in such cases.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 30:—
New section. Before Section 56, and in Part VI, a new section inserted as follows:—
"56.—Where a lease (whether made before or after the passing of this Act) of a tenement contains a covenant, condition or agreement prohibiting or restricting the doing by the lessee of any particular thing without the licence or consent of the lessor, and the rent reserved by such lease has not been paid for five or more years, and the lessor is not known to and cannot be found by the lessee, the court may, on the application of the lessee and after the pub lication of such (if any) advertisements as the court shall direct and if, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the court thinks fit so to do, authorise the lessee, subject to such (if any) conditions as the court shall think fit to impose, to do the particular thing so prohibited or restricted by such covenant, condition or agreement, and thereupon it shall be lawful for the lessee to do such particular thing without the licence or consent of the lessor, but subject to and in accordance with the conditions (if any) imposed by the court."
The object of this amendment is to deal with cases which though rare do in fact happen. That is where a tenant does not know who his landlord is and where he has not paid rent for five years. In such cases instead of having to get the leave of the landlord to do something he can go to the court and get such leave. It may seem strange to the House that the tenant would not know who his landlord was but it sometimes happens that a person dies who has no immediate relatives and his heirs may not be aware of his death.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 31:—
Section 56, sub-section (2). After the word "ground" in line 20 the words "in fee simple or" inserted.
This amendment is necessary because an estate might be mortgaged and the consent of the mortgagor might be required and it might be unreasonably withheld.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 32:—
Section 56, sub-section (2). After the word "lease" in line 20 the following words inserted:—"for a life or lives in being (either with or without a term of years) or under a lease for a term".
This is similar to amendment 7. A particular class of lease was left out through inadvertence.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 33:—
Section 56, sub-section (7). The words "commencing on such date as the court shall fix" added at the end of paragraph (a).
This amendment enables the court to fix a proper date as the date at which the lease would commence. It is proper to say that the court should have in these circumstances the power to fix the date because the occupier might have to clear out and the court should be in a position to give him some time.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 34:—
Section 56, sub-section (7). After the word "premises" in line 5 and within the bracket the words "in accordance with plans approved of by the lessor, or the court, or otherwise" inserted.
It is desirable that in many, if not in all, instances the particular type of house which is to be built should be sanctioned so that the house will be the proper class of house having regard to the surrounding neighbourhood, and so on.
Will the Minister say what is the exact meaning "or otherwise"?
It might be agreed by arrangement between the lessor and the lessee. They might agree. Possibly they are not very important words. They can do no harm, but the draftsman thought it well to put them in. They have no sinister meaning.
It seems to me that a person building may get his plans approved of by a chimney sweep if the word "otherwise" is left in.
They must be taken in connection with the context.
I cannot see that the words have any meaning at all except to destroy the rest of the section.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 35:—
Section 56, sub-section (7). A new paragraph added at the end of the sub-section as follows:—
"(g) the court may authorise the postponement of the execution of such lease until the building or buildings or a specified part thereof shall have been completed."
The object of this amendment is to prevent speculation in land. Somebody might come in and get a building lease, produce his plans and specifications, and if approved of by the court, then do nothing for a considerable time or seek even to sell his interest. This would apply to no person who was bona fide, but to a jobber who was looking for something.
There would be no danger of a person having spent a considerable sum of money in partial erection of a building, then failing to get his lease?
No, because it is entirely in the hands of the court. The court simply says: "We will not authorise the disposal of this lease until you have done so much." Then the applicant goes back to the court and gets his lease. It would be impossible to imagine that the court would treat a person in that unjust way.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 36:—
Section 56. A new sub-section added at the end of the section as follows:—
"(12) This section shall not apply to any land which is vested in or held in trust by any local or public authority (otherwise than as tenants thereof) for the purposes of their powers and duties as such or is held by any corporation for the purposes of a railway, tramway, dock, canal, water, gas, electricity or other public undertaking."
This exempts lands which are held by railway companies or other public authorities. I do not think it will ever work out very much or that it will ever have much application. It is to be found in all statutes of this nature. They wish to have it in here; I do not think it will do any harm.
It is not proposed to report to the Dáil until a later stage to enable amendment 10 to be further amended.
