Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 17 Feb 1943

Vol. 89 No. 5

Committee on Finance. - Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Bill, 1942—Second Stage.

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. This is a Bill to amend sub-section (1) of Section 46 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1931, in two respects. First, I shall deal with the amendment of paragraph (d) of the sub-section, probably the more important one. The effect of paragraph (d), as it has been interpreted by the courts, is that, if the original lessee had erected a building before he had actually obtained a building lease, the present-day lessee would not be entitled to the reversionary lease. This is being remedied by the amendment of paragraph (d), contained in paragraph (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Bill. Certain necessary consequential provisions are contained in sub-section (2) of Section 2. That is the first amendment. There was a case recently where one of the judges said, in delivering judgment, that there was clearly a flaw in the Act, as he thought the intention was that a reversionary lease should be granted where the building was erected in accordance with an agreement; but it happened that the court decided that, as the Act stood, of the buildings were erected before the lease was signed, the lessee could not get the benefit of Section 46. We are bringing in this Bill to amend that.

We are also providing for another type of case, where the building lease was given outside an urban area or a village. There is a case where, about 60 years ago, a board of guardians got a building lease a little bit outside a village and, because it was not in what is described as an urban area, it was found that they did not get the benefits of a reversionary lease. The other amendment covers that by providing that any house, even though it may be outside an urban area, if the area of the land is not more than one acre, will get the benefit of Part V of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1931.

Has there been any legal judgment on the latter case?

Mr. Boland

No, I do not think so, but the case has arisen and there may be other cases of the same kind.

Is the building there still?

Mr. Boland

Yes.

It is a dispensary.

Mr. Boland

That case has been settled, but such a case may arise again. Other provisions of the 1931 Act have been applied to such buildings outside urban areas, and it seems there was an omission to provide for such a case as this, and that omission is being rectified now. I took advantage of one matter to deal with the other. The person who had that lease has lost, of course, as this will only deal with future cases, if they arise.

On behalf of Deputy Costello, who raised some of these points—some of them I raised myself—I want to express my appreciation of the action of the Minister in bringing in this Bill. I think, however, that there is, at least, one gap to be filled. Under the 1931 Act, in order to hold your legal right to get a reversionary lease, you had to make application for it seven years before the actual lease fell in.

Mr. Boland

Any time within the seven years.

Any time within the seven years? At any rate, the Minister, while settling the position with regard to the past, is not in a position to say what will happen with regard to any lease that may fall in at the present moment or before this Bill becomes an Act, and which may not be covered by this particular Bill. While the Act is intended to make right the position which, it was thought, the 1931 Act made right, and which legal decisions held that it did not make right, we are still leaving a gap and, if any lease falls in before this Bill is passed, we are deliberately excluding the possibility of any reversionary lease being taken into consideration. I would suggest that, in order to meet the Minister's intention, it would be necessary to amend this Bill so that where, since the passing of the 1931 Act, a person was prevented from getting a reversionary lease, by reason of a defect which showed itself afterwards, after the passing of this Act it will be possible for such a person to remedy that situation. To my knowledge, there are two cases where leases have expired and where, normally, an application would have been made and an attempt made to get a reversionary lease, but the people concerned did not come under what was, evidently, the intention of the 1931 Act. My point is that such people will be excluded now also. I am not speaking of cases where there might be a question of a third-party interest. I know very well that there are cases where third-party interests would be involved. My point is that there are certain cases which, clearly, come within the intention of the 1931 Act —where there are no third-party interests concerned—and I think that such cases should be dealt with in this Bill. I think that an amendment should be inserted to deal with that matter, and I propose to submit an amendment myself—if the Minister does not do so—with the object of making this retrospective.

I think that the first amendment is a very necessary one, and I think that the case that came before the Courts will be only the first of a series of such cases, because a great deal of the property in Dublin comes into the same category. With regard to the second amendment, I presume that the Minister considered that that was necessary and I have not a very great quarrel with it, but it seems to me to bring in every building throughout the country. There is no restriction there except to an area of an acre. Under the original Act, an urban area included towns of a certain size, but also a village.

Mr. Boland

Yes, that is so.

But it did definitely exclude an area outside a village. I think it should be realised that the amendment is aimed at meeting a certain case. It brings in every building —no matter where it is situated—provided that it has an acre of ground attached. Now, that might bring in a mill. I do not know whether it is intended to go as far as that, but it seems to me that, according to this Bill, any building that is surrounded by an acre of land will come under it. It seems to me that, since the Minister did say that the second amendment was intended to deal with cases that had already arisen, now would be the time to deal with such cases as I have mentioned.

Mr. Boland

Deputy Mulcahy drew my attention to certain types of persons who would be ruled out under this Bill. Where there is a question of a third party involved; the case would be different, and it will be understood that I would have to provide for the interests of any third party that might have arisen in the meantime. However, I see the Deputy's point, and I shall endeavour to meet it. I shall bring in an amendment on the Committee Stage to deal with the matter. With regard to the point that was made by Deputy Esmonde, I think that if he will look at Section 46 of the Act, he will see that certain other conditions have to be complied with. If the Deputy will look at that section I think he will realise what is meant by "a building lease."

My point is that it may bring in a number of country mills.

Mr. Boland

It may.

I do not know whether that was intended or not.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 24th February.
Top
Share