I move amendment No. 80:—
To delete sub-section (1) and to insert in lieu thereof the following sub-section:—
(1) Every application referred to a district justice under Section 28 of this Act shall be dealt with by him as follows:—
(a) he shall deal with the application privately,
(b) in case it appears to him—
(i) that the premises are small premises to which Section 8 of this Act applies, or
(ii) that the premises are small premises to which Section 9 of this applies, the basic rent whereof has already been determined by the court, and that the amount of that basic rent is ascertainable,
he may by order determine provisionally—
(I) the lawful additions to the basic rent of the premises, and
(II) the lawful rent (in this part referred to as "the provisional rent") of the premises;
(c) in case it appears to him that the premises are small premises to which paragraph (b) of this sub-section does not apply, he may by order determine provisionally—
(i) the basic rent of the premises under Section 9 of this Act,
(ii) the lawful additions to the basic rent of the premises, and
(iii) the lawful rent (in this Part referred to as "the provisional rent") of the premises;
(d) if the premises are not separately valued under the Valuation Acts, he may for the purposes of this Act apportion to the premises such part as he thinks proper at the rateable valuation of the property in which the premises are comprised.
This amendment proposes to delete sub-section (1) of Section 29 and to substitute an entirely new sub-section. It is the first of a number of amendments which, it is hoped, will considerably improve Part III of the Bill.
The main objection that might be urged against the existing provisions of Section 29 is that the provisional rent which the justice would fix under a provisional order must obviously be an inadequate rent, since it would not include anything for rates or repairs. Despite this, under sub-section (2) of Section 30, that inadequate rent would become immediately the rent to be paid for the premises and would remain the rent to be paid until either the landlord had come into court under Section 31 or, in default of his so doing, the provisions of Section 32 had come into play. This would be, on the one hand, unfair to the landlord and, on the other hand, would be apt to cause confusion and possibly dissatisfaction among tenants when they would be told after a month or two that the provisional rent which they had been paying since the provisional order was made was too low and would have to be increased to bring it up to the strictly lawful rent.
Another serious objection is that there would be a very strong inducement for landlords in every case to come into court to try to upset prosional orders, since the rent (even though it was only provisional and temporary) which they were obliged to accept under such an order was obviously too low and did not even include provision for the rates, not to mention repairs.
The provisions of the new sub-section which the amendment proposes to insert have been framed to meet all these objections. The main feature of the new provisions is that in fixing the rent under a provisional order, the justice first settles the basic rent, when it is not already known, then determines the lawful additions and finally shows in his order the full lawful rent payable. This scheme has obvious advantages: the provisional order makes the position quite clear to both landlord and tenant and, since the rent fixed under it will be a far closer approximation to the strictly lawful rent than a provisional rent fixed under the existing sub-section could possibly be, there is a far better prospect that the landlord will accept the position and that thereby the trouble and expense which applications under Section 31 would entail for everybody concerned—the justice, his staff and the tenant as well as the landlord—will be eliminated or reduced to a large extent.
The new provisions have also the advantage that they provide a far more precise and scientific method for dealing with cases under Part III. Thus, if it is disclosed, in the course of the inquiries which the justice causes to be made, that the case is a Section 8 case, that is, one in which the standard rent had been fixed by the court under the 1923 Act, then all the justice has to do is to take that standard rent, add 20 or 25 per cent. (as the case may be) to it in order to arrive at the true basic rent, determine the lawful additions and so fix the full rent to be paid. The same procedure will be applicable if the case is a Section 9 case in which the basic rent has already been determined by the court. This procedure is provided for in paragraph (b) of the proposed new sub-section. The register of standard and basic rents which it is proposed to have compiled under the proposed amendment to Section 54 should be of considerable assistance to the Justice in finding out whether a case comes within paragraph (b) and, if it does, what the standard or basic rent of the premises is.
If the case does not come within paragraph (b), the justice deals with it under paragraph (c) by first determining the basic rent in accordance with the provisions of Section 9 (as now amended), then determining the lawful additions and finally the lawful rent to be fixed as the provisional rent.
The provisions of paragraphs (b) and (c) have the further merit that, in the matter of the recovery of excess payments of rent, the cases fall automatically into their proper category and the question whether or not there is a right to recover overpayments depends on the provisions of the Bill generally applicable in that matter. Under the existing draft it had been necessary to deal with the matter in an arbitrary fashion in Section 32 (1) (c) by deeming every case to be a Section 8 case, thus giving a right to recover overpayments in cases in which such a right would not exist if the case had been dealt with by proceedings in the ordinary way under Part II of the Bill.
Finally, paragraph (c) of the new sub-section gives the justice the power, which it is clearly necessary that he should have, to apportion the rateable valuation of the property which comprises any premises which are the subject of proceedings before him. This provision is necessary now for the particular reason that the justice in the process of making his provisional order is required to determine the lawful additions. One lawful addition will be that in respect of rates and, in order that the justice may be able to determine the amount of the rates attributable to, say, a single room, he must be able to apportion the valuation of the whole house. The provision for apportionment will, moreover, it is hoped, meet certain criticisms which were levelled at Part III by some Deputies on the Second Reading of the Bill. A number of Deputies were doubtful, as the Bill originally stood, whether the Justice had the right to apportion, but I think it is made quite definite by this amendment. I think the amendment will make a very big difference and improve that part of the Bill very much.