Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 3 Dec 1931

Vol. 14 No. 41

Town Tenants Bill, 1930—Report Stage (Resumed).

I beg to move amendment 8:—

Section 16, sub-section (5). To add at the end of the sub-section the words "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 amendment really follows upon an amendment which I moved last night, inserting a new section before Section 13. It is necessary in this particular sub-section to add the words set out in the amendment.

When this amendment was reached last night I felt it could not be passed simply as an automatic result of a preceding amendment which was adopted. It seemed to me then that we were giving the tenant in these circumstances certain rights and at the same time we were taking away some of those very rights that we were giving him. I thought last night that the three days' notice required by the section passed was entirely unfair to the tenant, but looking at the Bill again I notice that in Section 59 it is sufficient for the tenant who has to serve a notice on his landlord if he sends it by prepaid post addressed to the person to whom such tenant pays the rent. That meets my objection on that score.

I wish to draw attention to what I still think is a defect in the section that was passed, in the hope that it may be remedied in the other House, if not here. The tenant is required to serve the notice on the landlord in the prescribed form, a form to be prescribed by the Minister under regulations. It may be that a particular tenant knows the exact form; he may know what the prescribed form is, but it appears to me that the very fact that you require the tenant to serve a notice on a landlord in the prescribed form is imposing upon the tenant an obligation, a purely formal obligation perhaps, but if he fails to comply with it you may be depriving him of the benefits of the Act. If the material facts are presented to the landlord by the notice, it should not be necessary that these should be presented in the prescribed form, because the tenant will very likely not know the prescribed form.

I do not think it is absolute condition precedent to its being effective. If he got notice that an order was being served on him and was given an indication substantially of what he was ordered to do I think it would satisfy the section.

Then why introduce the words "in the prescribed form"?

They probably would be better left out.

I do not know if we could leave them out now, but perhaps we can suggest to the other House that they should be taken out.

I think we might almost authorise the Minister to say in the other House that we are agreeable to taking those words out.

Cathaoirleach

We cannot do anything now with the amendment carried last evening. Senator Johnson's suggestion and Senator Brown's acquiescence are, of course, very valuable.

This amendment provides that in case the tenant does not serve notice within three days he shall not be entitled to compensation. I will remind the House that during the discussion on the amendment to which this is consequential the Minister made a very valuable suggestion to the effect that any notice to be served by the local authority on the tenant ought to contain an endorsement in the terms of this amendment. That would be a very good thing, but Senator Mrs. Wyse Power, who has great experience in this matter of town tenants, indicated that there might be some difficulty, as in order to carry that through it might be necessary to make some amendment in the public health code. That seemed to weigh with the Minister and certainly it had a great effect upon my mind, because I realised at once the justice of what the Senator said.

There is a difficulty presented. Before you deprive the tenant of the right of compensation you must, I submit, safeguard the tenant in every possible way. Senator Johnson now seems to be satisfied with Section 59, which has reference to the notice. To go back to the amendment, the tenant shall not be entitled to compensation unless he has served on his landlord a sanitary work notice. Senator Johnson, who has gone very carefully through the Bill, seems to be satisfied with Section 59, which states:—

Any notice or other document required or authorised by this Act to be served by a tenant on his landlord may be so served by sending the same by prepaid post addressed to the person to whom such tenant pays the rent of the tenement to which such notice or document relates....

Will the Senator finish the paragraph?

Sub-section (1) concludes:—

at the place at or to which he pays or sends such rent.

The Senator appears to be satisfied that Section 59 is sufficient. He thinks it is sufficient to send the notice addressed to the landlord at the place where the tenant pays the rent. I will ask the Seanad to consider the case. Rents are paid to an agent and a man may be an agent for several estates. Is a notice addressed to a landlord at the agent's office by prepaid post a sufficient notice? The point which I made last evening is one which I think is deserving of consideration. I happen to know a house in one of the principal streets of this city in respect of which the name of the landlord was unknown for a great number of years. There was a tenant in possession. He did not know who his landlord was. For 10 or 15 years he lodged the rent to a separate account in the bank. That house became insanitary. Does this Bill give sufficient protection to the tenant in regard to sanitary work or in regard to the service of notice?

It might be necessary to pass a special Act for that tenant.

I contend that it does not. I would like the House to consider that there are many cases in which the name of the landlord is not known. There was one case in Parliament Street. As Falstaff said about the battle at Bosworth Field, the clock is there still—the clock by which he fought. Well, the house in this instance is there still, although it is derelict and insanitary. That is a concrete example, and when I put this amendment to the test of that case it does not satisfy the test. If the landlord is not available or is not known, there ought to be some arrangement for service in some other way—service on the agent or service by publication. This is a matter which, I think, Senator Brown ought to provide for in his amendment.

Assuming that the tenant executes the improvement on notice from the sanitary officer, why should he be under any obligation to give notice to anybody? The tenant spends his money carrying out improvements which the public health authorities decide he should carry out. Why should he be under any obligation to notify anybody else?

Cathaoirleach

The Seanad thought he should be, and they passed an amendment to that effect.

Let us take the case of a man who executes an improvement. The landlord may be dead. The man who is in occupation gets notice that he must carry out this improvement within ten days. He does not need to waste the six days that Senator Brown suggests, and he puts his money into the improvement right away. Senator Brown mentions three days' notice to the landlord and then three additional days until it comes back to the tenant. He does not waste these six days. He considers that the work is necessary, and he does it. Perhaps it may be lavatory accommodation that is required. Why should that man be asked to notify anybody?

Cathaoirleach

I do not think I can allow that question to be reopened. This amendment, to my mind, is purely consequential on the amendment adopted last night. If this amendment is not passed the two sections will not be in agreement.

I am endeavouring to convince the House that this amendment is not necessary. When a tenant carries out an improvement he should be under no obligation to notify anybody, and he should get the compensation following upon the improvement.

With regard to the question raised by Senator Comyn on Section 59 (1), I think the Senator must not have read the section very carefully. It says:—

Any notice or other document required or authorised by this Act to be served by a tenant on his landlord may be so served by sending the same by prepaid post addressed to the person to whom such tenant pays the rent.

When he pays the rent to the agent he sends it to the agent's office, addressed to the agent and not addressed to the landlord. I think that is perfectly clear and obvious. If there is a person in the fortunate position that he has been twelve years in possession of a house—the Senator said fifteen years—in connection with which there was neither an agent nor a landlord, in all human probability at the end of twelve years there would be no landlord, because the Statute of Limitations would be operative, unless there happened to be a minority or something of that kind intervening. Otherwise he would become his own landlord.

There was a minority intervening.

If there was it is strange that there was not some agent appointed to look after the property. If there does happen to be one case in a thousand years of that nature I do not think I would feel inclined to agree with Senator Johnson that it is necessary to legislate for it. As regards the point raised by Senator Wilson, all through the Bill when the tenant wishes to make an improvement he has to serve notice on the landlord in order to give the landlord an opportunity of carrying out the repairs himself. Last night I pointed out that in a great number of cases it is desirable that the landlord should carry out the improvements. I instanced a row of houses where it would be undesirable that each tenant should carry out his own individual improvements. The work should really be done by the landlord for the benefit of all.

Why should the man who does the work lose his rights because he has not posted a letter? Is not that what it amounts to?

Because he has not given the owner of the premises an opportunity to carry out the work.

But the owner gets a notice from the sanitary authorities.

Not necessarily.

The Minister has indicated that he does.

The notice is directed to the owner and occupier, but it is served on the occupier, and unless the occupier passes it on to the owner he never gets it at all. Might I suggest to Senator Comyn that his advice to this fortunate tenant who has not a landlord should be that his best course is not to take notice of the sanitary order and let the sanitary authority carry out the work, whereupon they will create a charge on the landlord's interest in the house?

I am very thankful to Senator Brown for advising me to do what I myself advised to be done. But what is the result? The sanitary authority has not made the improvement and the house has become derelict. It is a public nuisance at the present time.

There may be some difficulty with regard to the space of time given by the sanitary authorities to have repairs carried out. In some cases the period is only three days; it may be longer. Perhaps it would be advisable to leave this over until we find out if the public health authorities will permit a longer space of time.

Cathaoirleach

I am afraid we cannot do that now.

Could we not leave the matter over until the Fifth Stage?

Cathaoirleach

We could not make any alteration like that on the Fifth Stage.

The Seanad might also take into consideration cases where the owner so improves the sanitation of a house as to increase its letting value.

The kind of sanitary improvement that would increase the letting value of a house would be such a thing as a lavatory, and that is a thing that might be urgently needed. In my opinion the thing is all wrong.

Amendment 8 agreed to.
Government amendment agreed to:—
9. Section 17. In the new sub-section (4), inserted in Committee, to delete the figures "1930" and to substitute therefor the figures "1931."

I beg to move amendment 10:—

Section 17. In the new sub-section (4), inserted in Committee, to delete the words "and such tenant has not served an improvement notice in respect of such improvement."

This amendment is consequential on or rather corrective of the new sub-section that was inserted the last day on the motion of Senator Milroy. It proposes to strike out words that no longer apply.

I second.

These words would be very confusing if they were allowed to remain in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move amendment 11:—

Section 18, sub-section (1). To delete in line 55 the word "forty" and to substitute therefor the word "twenty."

This deals with the right to a new tenancy. As the Bill stands a new tenancy may be granted to a tenant on condition that during the whole of the period of forty years next preceding the termination of such tenancy the premises are continuously in the occupation of the person who was the tenant thereof immediately before such termination or of his predecessors in title. Any such person might be entitled, under conditions to be fixed by the court or by agreement, to a new tenancy. As I said on the last occasion, this is one of the blots upon the Bill and it has been generally condemned.

On a point of order, this point was settled in Committee, and it was decided that "forty" should remain in the Bill.

No. What was decided was that "twenty" should be inserted in the Bill.

It was decided that Senator Johnson's amendment should be accepted.

Cathaoirleach

The amendment was left over.

There was an understanding that this would be brought up again on the Report Stage.

Cathaoirleach

That was the position.

The provision of forty years has been very widely condemned. It is generally felt that if the Act is to be of any use to the ordinary tenant of a house there should be a much shorter period; the period of forty years is entirely too long.

I argued on the last occasion for reducing that period of forty years to twenty years. The case was made that there was something in the nature of a saleable right. It was pointed out, for instance, in respect to the forty years that the present tenant at the end of forty years may have been only in occupation for one, two or three years, but that if the tenancy had existed for forty years he was entitled to a continuation of the tenancy on terms to be fixed. I pleaded for a reduction in the number of years which would entitle a tenant to a new tenancy.

I argued in favour of that because of the importance of giving a person who had been in a house for twenty years and who, during that period, had reared his family in that house, the right to a new tenancy on terms to be fixed. I was not prepared to argue that there was something saleable, that there was anything like a dual ownership or anything like that, but that the man or the woman's personality had become associated with the house and that as it was described there was a sentimental attachment to it. I think the fact that a person has been in a house for twenty years, that he has kept the house in the order required by the contract of tenancy and is prepared to continue the tenancy on terms to be fixed by the court, should give him the right I am proposing in the amendment. As a concession to those who thought that the period should be of actual occupation I put forward the second amendment which, in fact, restricts the right that I am now seeking to confer on the twenty years' occupancy to a man or his wife, to the widower if the woman dies, and to the widow if the husband dies; that it would be purely in connection with a man or his wife.

That is a matter for discussion afterwards. If this amendment is accepted I am prepared to back the later amendment. If there is no acceptance of this amendment with that condition, then I will ask the House to divide on the issue as between twenty years and forty years irrespective of the later amendment. I would be quite prepared to see that this condition of twenty years should be attached to the man and wife occupation. I think it is a reasonable proposition. It will meet most of the objections that have been raised against any reduction in this period of forty years. I think, too, it would meet the great majority of cases where there is a just claim on the part of a tenant by virtue of the fact that his family has been reared in that house. It is reasonable that such a person should have the right at the end of twenty years to a new tenancy on terms to be fixed by the court.

I second the amendment and for this reason, that the period of forty years is of course more than a generation. In large cities it is nearly two generations. I stated on the last occasion that a forty years' occupation did not exist in more than five per cent. of the tenancies. That statement was challenged at the time. I have taken occasion since to verify it, and I find that five per cent., so far as cities are concerned, is rather above than below the mark. Of course, in the rural areas and in small towns throughout the country families remain in possession generation after generation, but in large cities residences are not occupied by the same family for more than forty years in five per cent. of the cases. That is a fact. However, I think forty years' occupation is a wholly illusory matter, and that really its effect would be this: to give people in the occupation of a residential house the idea that they are getting benefits under this Act, while in reality giving them no benefit at all. If I can form any estimate of the mind of the Seanad, I think Senators will all agree that when this Bill was before the House on the last occasion Senator Johnson made a very good case for the twenty years. I am sure the House will accept that amendment. But in order to get the amendment carried Senator Johnson said that if it were carried he would move the limiting amendment which appears on the Order Paper immediately after this.

If Senators turn to the Bill they will find that sub-section (1) of Section 18 provides:—

On the termination within the meaning of this section of a tenancy in a tenement, this Part of this Act shall apply to such tenement if such tenement complies with any one of the following conditions, that is to say:—

(b) such tenement was during the whole of the period of forty years next preceding the termination of such tenancy continuously in the occupation of the person who was the tenant thereof immediately before such termination or of his predecessors in title.

In order to show how reasonable the Senator is he tells the House that he will consent to have the meaning of that phrase "predecessors in title" limited to husband or wife. If the House accepts his limit of twenty years he will accept a limitation on that: that "predecessors in title" shall not include any person except the husband or wife. I would not be fair to the Seanad if I did not tell members beforehand that in case they pass this amendment, reducing the time to twenty years, and in case Senator Johnson moves his limitation on the meaning of "predecessors in title," I for one will be inclined to oppose the other amendment. I tell the House that because I do not want to get their vote on a misrepresentation. Of course I will be defeated, but I think Senator Johnson is giving away too much.

I hope the House will refresh its recollection as to what happened on the Committee Stage in connection with this matter. If there is anything in the nature of an agreement about this amendment, then the two amendments in the name of Senator Johnson must be taken together. It was an understood thing that there was an opportunity for accommodation in the reduction of the terms if the occupation was limited to the husband or wife. I would not say for a moment that Senator Comyn would deliberately mislead the House, but surely there is a far larger number of cases than five per cent. where there is continuity of title?

I said in the case of residential holdings in the cities.

My knowledge is confined to the country. In the country these things go on, and there is no break in the title except there is an eviction.

I agree the Senator is right so far as the rural areas are concerned and so far as country towns are concerned.

And in Dublin, too.

I have tried to get some figures so far as Dublin is concerned. Perhaps the Minister would be able to give us some information on that.

I do think that on this there was something in the nature of an implied agreement between different sections of the House to have these two amendments taken together. I think it would be wrong if this amendment were to pass and the other were to be rejected. If that implied agreement is not to be carried out, then I think it would be better that the period in the Bill should stand.

I am not sure that there was anything in the nature of an agreement except agreement that this matter was to come forward again. The view I take of it is that there is a difficulty because there are two amendments. It is unfortunate in my mind that Senator Johnson did not move to delete Section 18 and move to put in a new section with these two amendments together. If that had been done it would be comparatively easy for one to vote. If one is to vote in favour of this amendment it would have to be clearly on the understanding that the next amendment was really part and parcel of it and was accepted with it. If there could be an honourable understanding with regard to that amongst the various sections of the House, I am perfectly certain it would not be departed from. Senator Comyn said, speaking of the cities, that there were only five per cent. of the people in continuous residence. I do not know. It is quite possible he may be right so far as continuous residence is concerned. But when you come to cases of continuous title, I am quite convinced that the percentage is very much larger than five. The difficulty that I feel with the Bill as it stands, apart from the argument used by Senator Johnson, with which I have a great deal of sympathy, is that if you leave forty years' continuous residence, or of their predecessors in title, you are giving to some people who may only be in a house for a couple of years, but who have been lucky enough to have predecessors in title for forty years, the right to a new tenancy, while in the case of other people who may have thirty years' residence, but have not been lucky enough to have had predecessors in title during the preceding ten years, you are going to refuse them that right. It seems to me, as the Bill stands, that you are going to have a certain amount of injustice and a considerable amount of inequity. Assuming that the wording of the amendment is correct, I for my part would be prepared to support it provided the two are taken together. Their incorporation would leave the Bill better than it is, and I hope the Minister will seriously consider accepting both.

In view of the fact that the House is now discussing the two amendments, I wish to draw attention to a very sad case that occurred at Irishtown, in Dublin, in the past three months. The father and mother died. The family had been in the house for thirty-three years. The eldest girl, who was about twenty-five years of age, remained on in charge of the other members of the family. Some time after the father and mother died this girl and the remaining members of the family got notice to quit. They had to clear out of the house which the family had occupied for thirty-three years. I want to know what protection under either of these amendments or in the Bill itself a family left in such circumstances will get?

The case referred to by Senator Byrne is one of those exceptional cases for which I am afraid it is impossible to legislate. As far as I know there is no provision in the Bill to deal with such a case. I do not know even if it would be covered if these two amendments were carried.

It is covered in the Bill under the forty year term.

Senator Byrne stated that the family was in possession for thirty-three years. That is less than forty years. I think it is a reasonable compromise to have the two amendments taken together. That would prevent the position that has been postulated of a person having a right to a renewal of the lease although only actually in possession of the house for a few years. The amendments are more reasonable than the existing provision. The amendments propose to take something from one side and to give back a comparable amount. Forty years is an extraordinarily long term considering the normal life of man as well as the normal life of a modern house. Twenty years is a reasonable compromise in view of the restriction contained in the subsequent amendment. I hope neither Senator Comyn nor any other member of the House will oppose the subsequent amendment if the first amendment is accepted. I think that on the Committee Stage Senator Comyn himself suggested something in the nature of the second amendment.

Yes, provided it included the children.

There is a desire, I think, to be just to both sides, and if the compromise suggested here can be agreed on I think it is reasonable. I hope all sections of the House will find it possible to support both amendments. No opposition really has been put up to them, so that in the circumstances I hope they will be carried unanimously. The Bill will be none the worse if these amendments are inserted. Their acceptance will prevent what might be termed injustice and unreasonable reactions from the operation of the Bill as it now stands.

I would ask the House to adhere to the term of 40 years which is contained in the Bill. I would like to draw the attention of the House to the report of the Commission which went into and investigated this matter. That Commission came to the conclusion that, as a general principle, mere occupancy of a house did not give the right to have a fair rent fixed. I refer solely to dwelling houses. The Commission did come to the conclusion that in the case of a house in which persons had been there for a period of 40 years it had got a certain sentimental value and because of that a special exception is to be brought in. Forty years does not necessarily mean the same individual, it means where a man or his descendants have been in a house for 40 years, where a son or a daughter has succeeded the father, where a family has been in occupation of the house, where a person has grown up and possibly been born in a house and it has always been that person's home. The term of 20 years did not appear to be a sufficiently long period. I would ask the House to adhere to the term recommended by the Commission. An exception for sentimental reasons is being made upon the recommendation of the Commission, but if that is to be reduced to 20 years then you are simply cutting away the very basis upon which the Commission's recommendation was made.

Senator Comyn says that 40 years is, for all practical purposes, nugatory in cities. It seems to me that if Senator Comyn is right he is proving rather too much, because if people do not remain in houses for 40 years how long do they remain? If his opinion is that people do not remain for 40 years, except very few, then I take it that a great number must drop off at 20 or before 20 years. In consequence, if he has argued correctly it must be that a very large number of persons who have been 20 years in possession of houses do not want a renewal at all. My view is that there are a very large number of persons to whom houses come from father to son, sometimes from grandfather to grandson. It is that sentimental reason which the Commission suggested should be embodied in this statute. I suggest to the House that they should not cut away that foundation and reduce it to a mere period of 20 years.

I am in favour of these two amendments if they are properly worked together. My objection to 40 years based on title, that is 40 years including predecessors in title, is this: Very often, towards the end of a tenancy, where the predecessors have been there for 36 or 37 years, somebody comes along and buys up the butt end of that lease for a few pounds. He is only in the place for three or four years. He has only paid a small sum for it, and he is to get a new continuing tenancy. That is not fair. The Minister says the amendment is based on sentiment. With great respect—it is not based on sentiment. There is sentiment in it, but there is more than sentiment in it. If I have taken a place and lived in it for more than 20 years I have got more than a sentimental property in it. I have got a real personal interest in it which is not sentiment. I have made it, and there is a kind of property in it that ought to be respected. I am entirely in favour of the two amendments, provided they are worked together so that the 20 years will only apply to the person himself who is there at the end of the tenancy, to the wife or the husband as the case may be.

I withdraw my opposition to the second amendment on the understanding that the two are carried together.

I will have to oppose the second amendment on the ground that I think it would go very far to defeat and to reduce very considerably the number of persons who have what might be called sentimental right. It would affect a very considerable number of persons. Take the case I gave a moment ago of a man who has actually been born in a house and has lived there for fifty years. His father died ten years ago. He has got absolutely no rights under Senator Johnson's amendment if he inherited from his father.

You cannot legislate for the exceptional case.

Take the case that was put by Senator the Lord Mayor. Suppose these persons had been there for fifty-three years instead of thirty-three years they would go out. A large number of persons who are meant to benefit under this section will lose the benefit of it if Senator Johnson's second amendment is carried. If an amendment of that kind is carried I would agree to an amendment to the effect that such tenement was not acquired by a man or by his predecessors in title by purchase. That is to say, that during the period of forty years, if none of his predecessors in title had been purchasers for a valuable consideration, I would agree to such amendment.

I think that is something.

But I urge as strenuously as I can on the House to maintain the period of forty years and that the House if it wishes should take with it the amendment I have suggested. I think that answers Senator Brown's argument of a person coming in and purchasing at the last minute.

It meets one of my points. My combination was property plus sentiment. A man has property in a house if he has lived in it himself for twenty years. That is not mere sentiment.

If a man makes improvements he gets the value of them. Of course if he has changed the character of the house he is perfectly safe. If he has spent fifty per cent. of the value on improvements he is perfectly safe under the section, too.

There are many improvements which have not a commercial value such as beautifying a place, keeping it clean and a great number of other matters.

I ask the House to bear in mind this fact in reference to what the Minister said about the report of the Commission. That report contained a reference to forty years in regard to the right to a renewal of a tenancy. It also contained a recommendation regarding the establishment of a fair rent court. Let me put the case that a person has been in a house for twenty years and has no right to the renewal of the tenancy. A young man married at twenty-five. He has brought up his family there. At the age of forty-five he has no right to a renewal of the tenancy. He has to go out to a new house. There is no fair rent fixed for the new house. If the amendment is carried he is entitled to secure that there shall be a fair rent for the house that he is requiring the new tenancy for. The landlord will also have the right to plead his case before the court if no agreement is arrived at. So that when the Minister quotes the recommendations of the Commission he has also a right to take note of the fact that one of the recommendations which the Commission made in relation to this whole question has not been embodied in this Bill. Now I am by no means in agreement with Senator Comyn that the Minister's suggestion is of value. No doubt it would be of value of a kind.

It is of value to the tenants.

If the provision mentioned by the Minister is only going to apply to a forty years' tenancy, then it is the worse for the tenant and the better for the landlord.

I understand it is to apply to the twenty years' tenancy. It is the first example I ever got of a liberal frame of mind on the part of the Minister.

I do not know what the Senator calls a liberal frame of mind. I am afraid I failed to make my meaning very clear if I did not ask the House strenuously to keep the forty years.

The kind of case that Senator Byrne referred to undoubtedly is not treated either in the Bill or in the amendment. If I were to have my way I would like the twenty years to cover cases such as that quoted by Senator Byrne. I would like it to cover all tenancies and even predecessors in title—at least successors in title of the original tenant who happened to be a son or a daughter. I would like that, but that is not in the Bill. Senator Byrne did not bring forward any amendment to that effect nor those he is associated with, so that the responsibility for not having that in the Bill lies with Senator Byrne, who has now left the Chamber. I would like the twenty years to cover all these cases. I am hoping to get agreement in the Seanad: that it shall only apply to the case where the father or mother, husband or wife, have got a house between them for twenty years so that they shall have the right to a renewal of the tenancy not on their own terms—I ask the House to bear that in mind—but to continue in the house on terms to be fixed by the court if the landlord and tenant cannot agree. There is no hardship on the landlord. I hope the Seanad will take up this reasonable plea and meet one of the most serious objections that have been levelled against this Bill not only in the Dail, but throughout the country: the feeling that this forty years is practically nullifying any value in the Bill for the residential holding. The charge has been made that the Bill may be very useful to the shopkeeper type, but that it is of no value at all to the tenant of a dwelling-house. This amendment will give it some value. It will give some value to the house, and I hope the Seanad will support the proposal.

Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 24; Níl, 13.

  • William Barrington.
  • Samuel L. Brown, K.C.
  • Right Hon. Alfred Byrne.
  • Caitlín Bean Uí Chlérigh.
  • Michael Comyn, K.C.
  • George Crosbie.
  • The Countess of Desart.
  • James Dillon.
  • James G. Douglas.
  • Michael Duffy.
  • Thomas Farren.
  • Thomas Foran.
  • The Earl of Granard.
  • Sir John Purser Griffith.
  • Thomas Johnson.
  • Sir John Keane.
  • Seán E. MacEllin.
  • The McGillycuddy of the Reeks.
  • Colonel Moore.
  • Sir Walter Nugent.
  • John T. O'Farrell.
  • L. O'Neill.
  • Siobhán Bean an Phaoraigh.
  • Séumas Robinson.

Níl

  • John Bagwell.
  • Sir Edward Bellingham.
  • Miss Kathleen Browne.
  • Mrs. Costello.
  • Michael Fanning.
  • Cornelius Kennedy.
  • James Moran.
  • M. F. O'Hanlon.
  • Bernard O'Rourke.
  • James J. Parkinson.
  • Michael Staines.
  • Thomas Toal.
  • Richard Wilson.
Tellers:— Tá: Senators Comyn and Johnson; Níl: Senators Miss Browne and O'Hanlon.
Amendment declared carried.

I move amendment 12:

Section 18, sub-section (1). To delete in line 58 the words "predecessors in title" and to substitute therefor the words "predecessor in title if the immediate predecessor in title was the wife or husband of such tenant."

I think this amendment cuts out a very considerable number of deserving cases. A great number of tenants will be deprived under this amendment of advantages they ought to have.

Amendment put and declared carried, Mr. O'Neill dissenting.

I move amendment 13:

Section 20, sub-section (1). To delete paragraph 3.

On the Committee Stage I expressed my fear that the rights of a new tenancy might be nullified by a breach of some trivial condition of the lease and the amendment I put down, which has to be read with the next amendment, is intended to obviate the risk of nullification of these rights by the breach of some trivial condition of a tenancy agreement. I have been assured privately by the Minister and probably he can give me more definite evidence further to assure me that there is no such risk as I fear. I, therefore, do not intend to persist in the amendment, if you, sir, would allow it to remain open until the Minister can give us that assurance.

What I mentioned was that there was a statutory safeguard for tenants against what the Senator calls minor breaches of the covenant. The statutory safeguard is Section 14 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881. It is to the following effect:

(1) A right of re-entry or forfeiture under any proviso or stipulation in a lease, for a breach of any covenant or condition in the lease, shall not be enforceable, by action or otherwise, unless and until the lessor serves on the lessee a notice specifying the particular breach complained of and the breach is capable of remedy, requiring the lessee to remedy the breach, and, in any case, requiring the lessee to make compensation in money for the breach, and the lessee fails, within a reasonable time thereafter, to remedy the breach, if it is capable of remedy, and to make reasonable compensation in money, to the satisfaction of the lessor, for the breach....

(6) This section does not extend:—

(ii) To a covenant or condition against the assigning, underletting, parting with the possession, or disposing of the land leased; or to a condition for forfeiture on the bankruptcy of the lease, or on the taking in execution of the lessee's interest.

(8) This section shall not affect the law relating to re-entry or forfeiture or release in case of non-payment of rent.

Of course in the case of non-payment of rent, there was always six months. Therefore before a tenant can be put out it is necessary that an opportunity shall be given to him to remedy the breach. He can go to the court and have the matter decided. I should also point out that of course in this Bill we go rather far in saying that the landlord can never withhold reasonable consent to the breach of the covenant like sub-letting or anything of that kind.

I accept the Minister's assurance.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments 14 and 15 not moved.

I move amendment 16:—

Section 20. To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—

"(3) References in this section to the termination of a tenancy shall be construed as referring—

(a) in the case of a tenancy terminated by ejectment for non-payment of rent, to the date on which the period for redemption under Section 70 of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1860, would have expired;

(b) in the case of a tenancy terminated on account of a breach by such tenant of a condition of such tenancy, to the date on which the landlord shall have resumed possession of the premises comprised in such tenancy."

This was fully discussed on the Committee Stage. It stood over to enable the matter to be further considered. I do not wish to go into the arguments that I used on the last occasion, if the Minister is satisfied that the tenant has the six months' period for redemption under his Bill. Having had an opportunity of considering it in the interval between the debate on the Committee Stage and this further consideration of the Bill, if he is now satisfied that under the provisions of his section, as it is drafted, the tenant who is holding is ejected for non-payment of rent has the right of renewal within the six months' period for redemption allowed by the Act of '60 I am quite satisfied.

It is perfectly plain that he can redeem within six months, and if he redeems within six months he does not get a new tenancy. His old tenancy continues and he does not want this at all.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment 17:—

Section 21. To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—

"(6) Where the letting made to a sub-tenant would entitle the sub-tenant to the benefit of this Act as against his landlord and such letting is terminated by reason of the termination of the tenancy of the landlord by the superior landlord, the said sub-tenant if in actual occupation shall be entitled to the benefit of this Act as against the said superior landlord."

This amendment is designed to protect sub-tenants in case the tenancy of their immediate landlord is terminated. It is in line with the section which was inserted in the Land Acts and was regarded as a very beneficial section. I took some pride in this amendment because I thought there was a certain finish about it. However, it does not seem to satisfy the Minister. He accepts the meaning of the amendment, but he will not have my words at any price. So he puts down amendment No. 21, which reads:—

New section. Before Section 33 to insert a new section 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."

That is the Minister's way of saying the same thing that I tried to say in the earlier amendment. I have no great pride in my own amendment, so I will abandon it in favour of the Minister's amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment 18 not moved.

Cathaoirleach

Government amendment No. 19:

Section 26. Before paragraph (e) to insert a new paragraph 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.

I second.

I mentioned this on the Committee Stage. It is a fuller amendment than amendment 18 because it takes in the case where a landlord cannot be found, which was left out. It has satisfied the Parliamentary Draftsman as being a better worded amendment than the amendment which was moved before and which I asked to stand over.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Cathaoirleach

Government amendment No. 20:

Section 30, sub-section (1). To delete in line 26 the words "the next following" and to substitute therefor the words "any other."

I second.

This is really consequential on amendment 21 which I think the House has agreed to pass.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Cathaoirleach

Government amendment No. 21:

New section. Before section 33 to insert a new section 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.

I second.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendment 22 not moved.

I move amendment 23:

Section 44, sub-section (2). To delete in lines 61-63 the words "fifteen times the yearly amount of the rent or the greatest rent reserved by such lease" and to substitute therefor the words "five times the poor law valuation of the premises comprised in such lease."

This is an amendment which stood over for the considerationn of the Minister. It is a very complicated and difficult amendment. If the Minister has considered it and will not accept it I do not suppose the House will. It relates to special provisions in relation to building leases. Section 44 reads:

(1) In this Part of this Act the expression "building lease" means a lease in respect of which all the following conditions are complied with, that is to say:—

(a) the land demised by such lease is situate wholly in an urban area;

(b) there are permanent buildings on such land and the portion of such land not covered by such buildings is subsidiary and ancillary to such buildings;

(c) such permanent buildings are not an improvement within the meaning of this Act;

(d) such permanent buildings were erected by the person who, at the time of such erection, was entitled to the lessee's interest under such lease;...

If you look at sub-section (2) you will see that the expression "proprietary lease" means a lease complying with all the following conditions—there are a great number of conditions. If you come down to (e) you will see—

the said sum of money so paid or expended or the total of the said sums of money so respectively paid and expended (as the case may be) was not less than fifteen times the yearly amount of the rent or the greatest rent reserved by such lease.

That is if a tenant spent in improvements more than fifteen times the yearly rent that tenant shall be entitled to the benefits of this section in regard to a proprietary lease. I have been informed and, having gone into the matter, I have satisfied myself that that amount, "fifteen times the yearly amount of the rent or the greatest rent reserved by such lease," is too much and that a tenant who spends something less, but still a substantial sum, should be entitled to the benefit of the Act. What I want to substitute is "five times the poor law valuation of the premises comprised in such lease." Take a house in the suburbs of Dublin with a £40 valuation. If the tenant has expended £200 on that house my submission is that that tenant should be entitled to the benefits of this Act, and that "fifteen times the yearly amount of the rent or the greatest rent reserved by such lease" has two fatal defects. In the first place, in the generality of cases it is too much; in the second place, it happens to be most variable in its character. Cases have been pointed out to me where the manifest intention of the legislature would not be carried out if there was a strict adherence to the actual words of this section. As I say, it is a difficult matter to explain clearly in a brief space of time, because it would be necessary to go very fully into the law in relation to these leases. The Minister, in the interval between the Second Reading of this Bill and the Report Stage which we have at present, I am sure has had an opportunity of considering the matter. If he still adheres to the fifteen times the yearly rent I do not see that I am called upon to press this amendment very strenuously, but I certainly do make the suggestion that my amendment would be a considerable improvement in the Bill.

Of course the tenant who has spent a certain sum of money on the premises will have all the rights which are conferred upon him by the earlier portions of the Bill. If it is a business premises he will be entitled to have a fair rent fixed. If he is twenty years in occupation as the Bill stands at the moment or has been fifteen years in occupation and has a short reversion he will he entitled to a new tenancy at a fair rent against his predecessor in title. What this section is designed to meet is where there is a renewal of a building lease the person who owns the house, so to speak the owner of the bricks and mortar, has to get a renewal. It is very difficult to say that any person who chances to be for the time being in occupation is the owner of the bricks and mortar. Someone might pay £1,000 fine for a house and still for the purpose of keeping the covenants alive he might only pay a pound a year rent. In that case the person who paid the large fine was the real substantial owner. Sometimes it becomes very difficult to say as to whether the owner of the building lease has parted with the possession or not. That will depend on whether the tenant in occupation has paid the building lessee a very substantial fine or not. As I say, sometimes it is difficult to decide as to whether he has parted with or retained the major interest. It was originally in the Bill "twenty-five times." In the Dáil it was reduced to "fifteen times the amount of the rent." If the tenant has paid in fine or improvements "fifteen times the amount of the annual rent," then he has acquired in the house a greater interest than the building lessee has got, and he ought to get not merely his rights under the early parts of this Bill but he ought to be made the tenant of the ground landlord.

The Minister, of course, has very skilfully informed you that there are other provisions in this Bill favourable to tenants, but his arguments all apply to the case of future improvements. I am talking of the case of tenants of houses who have spent on permanent works in the house five times the poor law valuation. I do submit to the House that such a person is the tenant who is entitled to the relief intended. The Minister for Justice said no, he is not entitled to the relief intended by this Act unless he has expended in the house fifteen times the greatest annual rent that has been paid. It is a question admitting of easy determination now. If Senators think that an expenditure of fifteen times the highest rent that has been paid is necessary in order to give one of these lessees the benefit of this Act, then of course they will have to support the Minister's contention. I submit that an improving tenant, a tenant who has expended five times the poor law valuation in the case, say, of an ordinary house in Rathmines, Pembroke or Blackrock—a sum altogether of about £200 or £300—is entitled to consideration and should receive the benefits intended by this measure.

I would like some light upon this matter. As far as I can understand the argument, if the house is a considerable house and the poor law valuation is high, then the Bill is very much better for the tenant without the amendment being inserted in it because the poor law valuation is not merely the valuation of the land but also of the premises. I would like some instances in terms of cash. It seems to me the Bill is better than the amendment from the point of view of the tenant.

I am sorry I am not able to satisfy the Senator. I have not facts and figures before me. It rather surprises me to hear that the house with a high valuation may have a low rent. Sometimes that does happen; if the valuation is high the rent is sure to be high also in the majority of cases.

If the Seanad accepts Senator Comyn's amendment we will be agreeing that five times the poor law valuation of a house is a greater interest than the owner of the house possesses.

It would really mean that five times the poor law valuation of a house would be worth more than half the house. If I were to take particular instances I would be inclined to say that that is not so. A house would then be worth only ten times the poor law valuation. I do not know any house in Dublin City where that would be the case. You would be giving a man a proprietary lease over and above the man who really owned the property. Take a small house in Drumcondra the poor law valuation of which is £19 and the rent of which is probably £36. Under Senator Comyn's amendment the expenditure of £95 would give a man a proprietary lease in that house which would probably be worth £400 or £500. The equities would not be met there at all. Under the Bill the amount would be fifteen times the rental and certainly that man would be entitled to the house.

All this shows that what I said at the beginning is very true. It is very hard to understand this section. The best example of that is that I think my friend Senator Wilson does not understand it. I do not say that in any offensive way.

I think that Senator Wilson understands it very clearly.

The Senator is rather attracted by what the Minister said. The Minister talked of bricks and mortar. He said also: "Unless the tenant has spent as much on the house as would be equal to the value of the landlord's interest, I will give him no rights."

I never said anything of the kind.

Where does the Minister get his arbitrary percentage? What right has the tenant at all except under the Act of Parliament? The Minister says: "If the tenant has spent 50 per cent. of the value of the premises, give him those rights."

What rights? What does the Senator mean by "those rights"?

The rights which are conferred by this Part of the Bill, Part V. Let the Minister not interrupt me if he possibly can restrain himself. The Minister very plausibly said: "If a tenant has spent as much on the house as is equal to the value of the landlord's interest, then give the tenant the rights under Part V of this Act." Where does the Minister get his arbitrary 50 per cent.? Under the common law the tenant has no right at all, so you are giving the tenant rights which he previously did not possess. I say you should give these rights to the tenant who has spent on the house five times the poor law valuation. The Minister says "No; do not give these rights unless he has spent a sum equal to 15 times the highest rent that has ever been paid under the lease." My figure is arbitrary and the Minister's figure is arbitrary. The Minister, in order to capture your attention, says "fifty-fifty." There is no fundamental rule, there is no rule of law which makes sacred the 50 per cent. Which the Minister has talked about so freely both now and on the last occasion. It is a difficult matter to deal with. He puts the arbitrary figure of 15 times the highest rent that has ever been paid in respect of the house. That has two defects. In the first place, it is too high, and in the second place, it is not a certain measure. My measure, at all events, is a certain measure. It is based on the poor law valuation, which is or ought to be uniform.

What Senator Comyn seems to forget is that the person he calls the landlord has no rights except under this Bill. The person the Senator calls the landlord is——

The middleman.

Yes, the middleman. He has no rights at the expiration of his lease except what this measure confers upon him, and neither has the tenant. What has been decided is that in certain cases what we call the middleman, if you like, will get the lease; in other words, the tenant in occupation.

I am putting the tenant in occupation on the one side and the man with all the superior interests, the landlord, on the other side.

Cathaoirleach

The Senator must not argue any further.

I suggest that Senator Comyn should reconsider pressing this amendment. I do not know anything about the law, but I do know something about facts. I could quote for the Senator a certain terrace of good, modern houses with two gardens. They have been purchased under proprietary leases such as are referred to here. The ground rent in each case is £8. Fifteen times the rent would be £120. The valuation is £26, and five times the valuation would be £130. If the amendment were carried into effect the tenants in this block of 20 houses would be worse off than they would be if the Bill is left as it is. There may be cases on the other side of the fence, but this to me is a very forcible example of the fact that if the amendment is carried the Bill will certainly be disimproved.

As regards some people; there is no doubt about that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Cathaoirleach

Government amendment 24:

Section 56, sub-section (2). After the word "ground" in line 20 to insert the words "in fee simple or."

I second.

This amendment proposes the insertion of the words "in fee simple or." The reason is that the fee-simple owner may not be able to grant a lease because there may be mortgagees. Though at first sight it may appear to be strange, the words "in fee-simple or" do appear to be necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

Cathaoirleach

Government amendment 25:

Section 56, sub-section (2). After the word "lease" in line 20 to insert the words "for a life or lives in being (either with or without a term of years) or under a lease for a term."

I second.

These words were inadvertently left out, and on another stage I drew attention to the necessity for having them inserted.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments 26 and 28 were an attempt on my part to facilitate the granting of building leases by the court. On further consideration I am not sure that they would work very satisfactorily and I do not propose to move them.

Amendment 26, by leave, withdrawn.

Cathaoirleach

Government amendment 27:

Section 56, sub-section (2) To add at the end of the sub-section a new paragraph as follows:—

(c) where a local or public authority has any estate or interest in the building ground for the purposes of their powers and duties as such authority or a company carrying on a railway, tramway, dock, canal, water, gas or electricity undertaking has any estate or interest in the building ground for the purposes of such undertaking, the consent of such authority or company (as the case may be) in addition to any other consent (if any) required under this section.

I second.

It has been pointed out to me that there are cases that this amendment would not meet and, in the circumstances, I suggest that I should be permitted to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment 28 not moved.

As regards amendment 29, the Government amendment 31 is better drafted and, in the circumstances, I will not move my amendment.

Amendment 29 not moved.

Cathaoirleach

Government amendment 30:

Section 56, sub-section (7). To add at the end of paragraph (a) the words "commencing on such date as the Court shall fix."

I second.

The object of this amendment is to enable the court to fix a date upon which the building lease will commence. It is desirable that the court should have power to fix a specific date.

Amendment agreed to.

Cathaoirleach

Government amendment 31:

Section 56, sub-section (7). After the word "premises" in line 5 and within the bracket to insert the words "in accordance with plans approved of by the lessor, or the court, or otherwise."

I second.

This is the Government amendment to which Senator Brown referred a short time ago.

Amendment agreed to.

The next amendment is almost similar to amendment 33, which is a Government amendment, and in the circumstances I will not move my amendment.

Amendment 32 not moved.

Cathaoirleach

Government amendment 33:

Section 56, sub-section (7). To add at the end of the sub-section a new paragraph 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."

I second.

This is to prevent a person going in, getting a building lease, and then not doing any building, simply sitting there in order that he may get a purchaser and possibly a profit.

And you hold up the lease?

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move amendment 34:

Section 56. To add at the end of the section a new sub-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."

The Minister has signified his intention of accepting this amendment.

I second.

Amendment agreed to.
Question—"That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"—agreed to.
Fifth Stage fixed for Wednesday, 9th December.
Top
Share