asked the Minister for Justice whether he is aware that under sub-section (2) (g) of Section 11 of the Rent Restrictions Act, 1946, a serious abuse is growing up, as under this section a landlord can now spend money substantially in excess of normal repair requirements and thereby bring about an unreasonable increase in rent which, if unchecked, will defeat all rent restrictions; and, if so, whether he is prepared to consider introducing proposals for amending legislation to deal with this abuse.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Rent Restrictions Act Abuses.
I am aware that in certain cases landlords have been able to avail themselves of the provisions of sub-section (2) (g) of Section 11 of the Rent Restrictions Act, 1946, to bring about disproportionate increases in the rents of their tenants. A similar provision was a feature of the 1923 Rent Act, and, so far as is known, did not lead to any abuses. How far the new situation may be due, on the one hand, to any inherent defect in the provisions in question or to the manner in which these provisions have been construed and applied by the courts or, on the other hand, to the failure or neglect of tenants to exercise the right conferred on them by sub-section (5) of Section 20 of the Act to challenge in the appropriate court the increase of rent when demanded by the landlord is a question upon which I do not feel warranted in expressing an opinion without further inquiry. The matter is a difficult and complex one, and is receiving urgent and careful consideration.
If it be true that abuses of the kind suggested have recently arisen (and I am bound to say that there is some evidence that this is the case), I think it right to put all concerned on notice that I shall not hesitate to ask the Government to authorise legislation, if needs be of a retrospective character, rather than allow the rent restrictions code to be reduced to a futility by the existence of a state of the law which permitted increases of rents out of all proportion to existing rents.
The Minister, I take it, is aware of three cases which were before the courts recently. Is he aware that in the case of Stephens v. Carroll where, as a result of the Dublin Corporation making a demand that certain repairs be carried out, which they estimated would cost £250, the landlord, over the head of the corporation and of the tenant, expended £1,250 on the house? When the case came into court the judge held that under the Act he had no alternative but to permit an increase of the rent from £55 10s. 0d. to £245. There are two other similar cases of which I am sure the Minister is aware. The answer which the Minister has given meets the case in a satisfactory way. I would be glad if the Minister would take the earliest opportunity to make it publicly known that, if he is satisfied that abuses are taking place, not only will he introduce amending legislation soon to deal with them, but that he will make such legislation retrospective in its effect. I do not know whether the Minister is aware that, now that the precedent has been established in three cases in the law courts, this matter is taking on very widespread proportions and will affect numerous tenants in our areas.
I do not know the names of the cases, but I am aware of cases in which the landlord failed to carry out any repairs to a house for a certain number of years. He then carried out all the repairs at one set time, which involved very big expenditure. That enabled him to qualify under the section that has been referred to. In the case, however, of the good landlord who does a certain amount of repairs each year he does not qualify. Therefore, the person who is a good landlord is being penalised whereas the person who is a bad one gets off. I am having the matter examined and if the facts are established as they appear to be—again, I am not to be taken as judging—but if they are established I will not hesitate to ask for further legislation, even of a retrospective nature, so that this matter can be dealt with.