Perhaps the Minister will say what his intention is with regard to these amendments.
INCREASE OF RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST (RESTRICTIONS) BILL, 1926—FROM THE SEANAD.
My intention is to move the acceptance of all these amendments.
The Dáil went into Committee to consider the Seanad amendments.
I move:—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 1":
1. In Section 7 (1), after the figures "1923," line 63, the following words and figures inserted: "and prior to the 24th day of June, 1926, by the Principal Act, or, in case such agreement was made on or after the 24th day of June, 1926."
This amendment was introduced at my request in the Seanad. A suggestion appeared in a letter in the public Press that Section 7 as originally drafted went further than it was intended to go. Under Section 7 as drafted it might appear that agreements would be validated over the period June, 1923, to June, 1926, even though the rent reserved exceeded the standard rent by more than the amount permitted by the Principal Act—in other words, that the extra 10 per cent. bonus given by Section 6 of the present Bill would be a permitted increase so far as these validated agreements were concerned. That was not the intention. The intention was to validate agreements which were not enforceable merely because of a technical omission on the part of the landlord. It was not intended to put him in any better position than the landlord who had observed all these technicalities. The amendment ensures that what were in fact the intentions are fully carried out.
I think that the intention which the Minister has explained was the purpose of the section was believed by the Dáil to have been the actual intention, and if this amendment—as it does—makes that clear, I think there should be no objection to accepting it.
Question put and agreed to.
I move:—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendments 2 and 4":
2. In Section 9 the word "while," in line 61, deleted and the following words substituted therefor: "during any period not exceeding six months during which."
4. In Section 9 all words from and including the word "Provided," in line 66, deleted to the end of the section.
These are merely drafting amendments and there is no change in the substance or effect of the Bill by their acceptance.
Question put and agreed to.
I move:—
"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 3:"
In Section 9, before the word "tenant," line 64, the word "suitable" inserted.
This amendment will affect, as I think, only rather large houses. It was pointed out to me that a landlord should not be penalised for the rates of an empty house where he was bona fide unable to get a suitable tenant—that is, a tenant who, having regard to the size of the house, might reasonably be expected to be able to pay the rent and to maintain the house and the premises in a proper condition. I think that there can be very little danger of abuse in connection with the amendment, because the question will fall to be decided in the first instance by the local authority.
If the local authority disputes the fact that the houseowner was unable to obtain a suitable tenant they will, of course, not remit the rates, and an appeal from assessment of rates in connection with the house would only lie to the court. There the question of fact as to whether the house was only kept vacant because a suitable tenant was not forthcoming would fall to be determined, and the landlord would have to satisfy the court that he was not unreasonably refusing to let his house to applicants. It should be clear that a landlord does not necessarily act unreasonably merely because he refuses to let a house to an applicant. If a particular applicant for a house were well known to be improvident and destructive it would be a hardship to expect, the houseowner to let him a valuable house of considerable size and high rent. On the whole, therefore, I thought it better to accept the amendment.
To a house of what valuation does this amendment apply?
It would apply to any house. There is no restriction on valuation, but I anticipate that its application will only arise in connection with large houses.
I think that this is an amendment which should be opposed if the consequences of defeating it and having possible disagreement with the Seanad were not so great. I realise that if, from a disagreement by the Dáil with the Seanad on a matter of this kind, the Bill did not become law for nine months, the effect would be that tenants all over the country would be at the mercy of the landlord three years earlier than they would otherwise be. The Bill generally is designed to place landlords in a position in three years time to extract anything that they can get out of the tenants in circumstances of a house famine, but if this amendment led to a disagreement between the two Houses that permission to the landlords would be operative in a fortnight's time. Therefore I do not propose to oppose the amendment for fear of a calamity which would arise if the Bill did not become law, even in its present very unsatisfactory form.
I think that the amendment will give rise to litigation. Who will decide suitability as between the houseowner and the local authority? Suitability will become a matter of dispute and will lead perhaps to a kind of lobbying and canvassing by the houseowner of the members of the local authority as to whether they would not agree that such-and-such a person was suitable or unsuitable. I therefore think that, while the amendment is undesirable on its merits, the consequences of a quarrel between the Dáil and the Seanad would be too grave, and therefore I shall not oppose it.
If this amendment is accepted it will mean that any landlord whose house becomes vacant can keep it idle for twelve months or two years, until he gets a tenant able to pay him an exorbitant rent. House accommodation is very scarce and people are not in a position to pay big rents, rents that may be 200 per cent. above the standard of 1914. Yet such a landlord, under this proposal, will be able to keep the house vacant until a suitable tenant, who would be able to pay him 200 or 300 per cent. over the standard rent, comes along. Last year the Minister accepted an amendment to the Rent Restrictions Bill making landlords responsible for the rates on vacant houses, and that facilitated people in the towns very much. The landlords had to pay the rates whether the houses were occupied or not, and consequently they let them at fair rents. But if this amendment is accepted they would not; they will not be losing anything by having the houses vacant, and some landlords would prefer to have them idle rather than to let them at a rent which a workman or artisan would be able to pay.
I have very little shame in admitting that I do not understand the Deputy, and I do not know whether many Deputies do. The Bill fixes a maximum rent, and there is no question of a house being kept vacant until a tenant who will pay an exorbitant rent comes along. The rent of any tenant is likely to be on the level fixed by the Bill, beyond which it becomes illegal, and the extent of the amendment is merely to make it possible for a houseowner to refuse to let to a particular person on some such grounds that he, to put it crudely, would not be a good mark for the rent, or that his means would not permit of his keeping the house, and possibly premises outside the house, in a proper condition of repair. These are valid reasons on which a houseowner might hesitate to let a house. But the question as to whether in a particular case reasons exist, and exist to a degree that would justify refusal to let, would ultimately fall to be determined by the court.
If the local authority were satisfied that a suitable tenant for the house was not forthcoming they would remit the rates. If they did not accept the contention that a suitable tenant was forthcoming for the house they would not remit the rates, and an appeal from that decision, if the houseowner thought fit to take it, would, of course, lie to the court. There the question of fact as to whether or not the house was empty because of the absence of a suitable tenant would be determined. But Deputies should realise, putting themselves in the place of the owner of house property, that people might be applying for the tenancy of a house who would be distinctly unsuitable.
Question put and agreed to.
I move:—
"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 5."
In Section 14, after the word "due," line 59, the following words inserted, "by a landlord or any sum claimed to be recoverable by a tenant."
When the Bill was before the Dáil there was a discussion on the advisability of questions of standard rent, and kindred matters, being decided in any action that might be taken for recovery of possession and recovery of rent due. It was pointed out that the Principal Act enabled this to be done where an action lay for recovery of possession, and Section 14 was put in to deal with a case where the action was for recovery of rent. This present amendment extends Section 14 to the case where the landlord is sued by the tenant for alleged overpayments of rent. If a tenant takes such action I think that auxiliary questions, such as the amount of the standard rent, could be decided by the court in the same action, and that is the purpose of the amendment. It is simply a slight extension of what was already provided in the Dáil.
Question put and agreed to.
I move:—
"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 6."
In Section 14, after the word "under," line 62, the words "The Principal Act or" inserted.
This is clearly a drafting amendment and it makes no change of substance.
Question put and agreed to.
I move—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 7."
In Section 14 the following sub-section added at the end of the section:—
"The court shall, if satisfied that any error or omission in a statutory notice, whether served before or after the passing of this Act, is due to a bona fide mistake on the part of the landlord, have power to amend such statutory notice, by correcting any errors and supplying any omissions therein which, if not corrected or supplied, would render such statutory notice invalid, on such terms and conditions as respects arrears of rent or otherwise as appear to the court to be just and reasonable and, if the court so directs, the statutory notice as so amended shall have effect and be deemed to have had effect as a valid statutory notice."
This is a new sub-section. The position hitherto has been that certain defects in statutory notices served by the landlord on the tenant have had the effect of completely invalidating the notices. The decided cases do not make it very clear what particular defects are vital, but it seems possible that mere errors in calculation invalidate a notice ab initio, and that seems unduly rigid. The amendment would enable the court to rectify bona fide mistakes. I would like to make it clear that the penalty provided by the Principal Act for fraudulent misrepresentation is unimpaired by the amendment, but it is possible, say, in a big office, dealing with a good many tenants, that a purely clerical error might bona fide creep into the notice. It is rather unduly rigid that a mistake of that kind, with no question of fraud or anything of that kind involved, should utterly invalidate the notice, and it is thought proper to give to the court power to rectify mistakes of that kind when the court is entirely satisfied that the mistake was bona fide.
Will the same thing apply to a tenant where he has been accepted by the landlord to pay a rent over and above the rent allowed? Will the tenant have the same power to take the landlord to court and recover any amount that he has paid in rent over and above what is allowed, or will the court have jurisdiction to fix a fair rent between the landlord and the tenant where a dispute may arise? If a house for which the rent had been 10/- is let at £1 a week, as has often happened, and the tenant signs an agreement to pay that rent, will the tenant have an opportunity of appealing to the court to have a fair rent fixed?
Yes.
Will he be entitled to a refund?
Yes, again.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Reported that the Seanad amendments have been considered and agreed to.
Report adopted.