I move amendment 1:
In page 3, line 33, Section 2 (e), after the word "letting" to insert the words "which is."
This is merely a verbal alteration. It does not affect the meaning in the slightest.
Financial Resolution. - Town Tenants Bill, 1930.—Report.
Ordered: That the amendments be considered in Committee.
The Dáil went into Committee.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment 1a:—
In page 3, line 39, section 2, to add after the word "village" the words "and shall include any lands or premises wherever situate held by the occupier thereof under a lease or other contract of tenancy and used solely for the purpose of trade or manufacture, or as a residence."
Is not this the same as the amendment that was ruled out of order in Committee?
No. As a matter of fact, the amendment which was ruled out of order in Committee was to delete paragraph (a) of Section 2. On that occasion we discussed the method by which it would be possible to have the idea expressed in this amendment considered. I think it was you yourself, a Chinn Comhairle, who suggested that by an extension of the word "village" it could be done.
I would like to hear myself quoted where I made that suggestion.
I said:
"If we can find a way of getting around the ruling of the Chair, will the Minister accept an amendment to put in a definition of ‘village' that will include such houses as Deputy O'Connell refers to?
"An Ceann Comhairle: There is no evidence that that would be contrary to the ruling of the Chair."
That is very different from a suggestion from the Ceann Comhairle as to how it should be done. The effect of this amendment is to include in the provisions of the Bill on the Fourth Stage "lands or premises wherever situate"; that is to say, whether inside or outside an urban area.
Yes.
The effect of the amendment is to make a substantial widening of the Bill in the Fourth Stage. It seems to me to be more out of order on this Stage than on the Committee Stage.
The difficulty is that there is no definition of the term "village" at all. Nobody seems to know what a village is. The Minister says "a cluster of houses." He could not say how many houses should be in the cluster in order to constitute a village. The position is that in order to make the Bill operate, as I think its framers intend it should operate, to cover the case of houses which are not covered by the Land Act, it is necessary to get a definition of some sort of the term "village." I am suggesting a definition that would include isolated houses whether situated at a cross-roads or half a mile outside a village boundary.
I understood when this was on that the Minister was sympathetic to the idea of having an amendment that would cover every house whether it stood by itself or in a village. I understood from the Minister when the Third Reading was on that he would endeavour to find a form of words which would bring in every house such as Deputy Lemass is bringing in in his amendment now.
I would, as I have said, have no objection to any houses being included in this Bill, but it was not the original intention that they should. No representations were made to the Committee which sat on this matter that these houses if they exist should be included in the Bill, and no representations were ever made by anybody or as far as I know by even individuals who occupy this class of house that they should be included in the Bill. In consequence of no representations being made, the matter has not been considered at all by the Town Tenants Commission. It was not the original intention that they should be included. I did, however, express my view that if there was such houses it would be perfectly all right that they should be included. I did state, as Deputy O'Connell has said, that I would endeavour to get a formula which I thought would be in order and which at the same time would effectuate that purpose.
I have been unable to find such a formula. Leaving aside these things, and on the question as to whether the amendment by Deputy Lemass is in order or not, I do not think that the amendment would carry out what Deputy Lemass or Deputy O'Connell wants. The amendment by Deputy Lemass reads as follows
and shall include any lands or premises wherever situate held by the occupier thereof under a lease or other contract of tenancy and used solely for the purpose of trade or manufacture, or as a residence.
I do not think that that is at all a desirable amendment if you come to consider what it would cut out. It would have to be used solely for the purpose of trade, manufacture or residence. If it were used partly for trade and partly as a residence it would be cut out by this definition. Suppose it were a house with a half acre or an acre of land attached to it, to use the expression used in law, a curtilage, supposing there was a curtilage there, the whole house would be cut out. That would be because it would not be used solely for the purpose of a residence. I failed to get any wording which I thought would be in order according to the ruling of An Ceann Comhairle. I am not expressing any opinion now as to whether these words are or are not in order, but even if they were in order they would have to be very drastically altered to carry out the intentions of the Deputy.
[Notice having been taken that twenty Deputies were not present; on the division bell being rung and the House counted twenty members were found present.]
If the Minister indicated how by the alteration of the wording this amendment might be made express what we want to have carried out, perhaps it would help.
Might be made both orderly and effective.
I do not know whether it could be made orderly. I leave that to the Ceann Comhairle to decide.
Perhaps the Minister could suggest a way in which it could be made effective.
The amendment is clearly out of order because the Bill in its Title and context contemplates its application to tenements in urban areas. The amendment aims at making the Bill apply to tenements wherever situated, whether inside or outside urban areas.
An urban area is defined in the Bill as including a village and a village may be one house.
We are all agreed that this particular class of house ought to come in, but we are not able to find a formula to bring it in.
I suggest that we should deal with it on this basis—that any tenement that did not come within or under the Land Act should be included. I say that because one class of tenant is dealt with under the Land Act, and the others should be dealt with under this, as being urban. They are non-agricultural, and they should come in that way. I made that suggestion before as to whether the definition should not be based on these lines.
Is it intended to complete the Report Stage to-day or to postpone the matter?
It was my intention to complete the Report Stage to-day. Of course the Bill is not finished yet.
We could finish these amendments now in Committee and postpone the main question until to-morrow or Friday. In the interval an amendment could be framed; if it is correct to say that everybody wants the same thing. I have always some doubts about that, but if that is so some words could be found to meet the case. We could take the Fourth and Fifth Stage on Friday, leaving the interval to find the formula if the Minister would agree not to take the main question to-day.
That would not delay the matter at all.
Amendment I (a) not moved.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 4, line 16, Section 2, after the word "buildings" to insert the words "and also includes the installation in the tenement of conduits for the supply of water, gas, or electricity."
I expressed my view in Committee that this principle was already contained in the section as it was, but some of the Deputies opposite expressed some doubts on that matter. In order that there might be no doubt I agreed to accept these words.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 5, line 50, section 10, to delete the words "within ten years before such expiration."
I introduced that amendment in pursuance of a promise I made in Committee already.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In page 6, line 22, section 12 (1) (c), to delete the word "or" where it first occurs.
This amendment is merely verbal. It improves the grammar.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 5 which reads:
In page 7, line 36, section 14 (b), to delete the word "within" and substitute the words "as soon as may be and in any case not later than."
It was suggested by Deputy Lemass that these or similar words should be introduced so that the landlord would not have the impression that in every case whether the improvement was large or small a six months period might elapse. It was to prevent that the amendment is put in. I agree to accept the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 6:
In page 8, section 15 (2), to delete all from the word "and", line 38, to the word "less", line 42, and substitute the words "then, unless such tenant either holds the tenement to which such notices relate under a lease or other contract of tenancy granted for a term of more than five years or for a life or lives or such tenant and his predecessors in title have been in occupation of such tenement for more."
This meets the case in which a person might be in occupation for some time under a lease and for some time under a tenancy.
Amendment agreed to.
I beg to move amendment 7:—
In page 9, section 16 (1), to delete all from the word "he", line 23, to the end of the sub-section and substitute the words "compensation could be awarded under the Town Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1906, and in respect of which such tenant is precluded by sub-section (3) of section 3 from claiming compensation under that Act."
It was pointed out on the Committee Stage that there might be improvements in regard to which the tenant could be debarred under the section as it stood; that is to say, there might be improvements made by him for which he would be entitled to compensation under the 1906 Act and in consequence he would not have served notice under the 1906 Act. It is to meet such a case that I introduce this amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I beg to move amendment 7 (a):—
In page 9, line 29, Section 16, to insert at the end of sub-section (2) the words "unless the Court is of opinion that the consent of the landlord could not have been reasonably witheld, if same had been applied for."
When the Bill was going through the Committee Stage, Deputy O'Connell moved to delete sub-section (2) of this Section. The sub-section reads:
A tenant shall not be entitled to compensation for improvements in respect of an improvement made before the passing of this Act on a tenement in contravention of the lease or other contract of tenancy under which such tenement was held.
In the discussion upon Deputy O'Connell's amendment the Minister stated what could be done. He pointed out that we were establishing in this Bill the principle that consent should not be unreasonably withheld.
Although he was not prepared to accept Deputy O'Connell's amendment, he nevertheless indicated that he would consider an amendment on the lines that I am now suggesting; in other words, that the tenant shall not be entitled to compensation in respect of improvements unless he can satisfy the court that if he had made application to the landlord for permission to effect these improvements the consent of the landlord would have been unreasonably withheld. In view of the general principle embodied in the latter parts of this Bill in respect of restrictive covenants and leases, it seems to me this amendment would be in accord with the rest and I think its acceptance might be considered.
I considered the matter very carefully indeed and I came to the conclusion that it would not be right or proper to accept this amendment. That was after mature consideration. What I said was that I would see if I could accept the amendment. Having considered it, I have come to the conclusion that it would establish a very bad principle. It is not on all fours with the other parts of the Bill, because in the other parts of the Bill you are contemplating a thing which will be done in the future while here you would legalise a thing which was done in the past in contravention of a covenant or agreement. In all leases for the future you will have a covenant implying that the consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. That is inserted in leases for the future, and therefore a tenant can have it decided as to whether it would be unreasonable. Here you would be going back on the past and you would have the person who would have broken his covenant or agreement finding that his breach of the covenant or agreement was being legalised by subsequent legislation. That would be a bad precedent to introduce. I considered the matter pro and con very carefully, and I came to the conclusion that I could not accept an amendment of this nature. I regret that I have to oppose Deputy Lemass's amendment.
The point which the Minister appears to overlook—and it was referred to by Deputy O'Connell in Committee—was that very frequently the consent of the landlord is given verbally and the tenant is not always in a position to produce proof of consent when claiming compensation. These things are not always done in a formal manner, and it is quite possible that the tenant effecting the improvements under the impression that the landlord would agree to them would find himself on the expiration of the lease deprived of the compensation he was entitled to. The landlord will not be asked to pay compensation unless the letting value is increased by the improvements. It seems to me that the ordinary claims of justice would suggest an amendment of this kind as a safeguard against the possibility of a tenant being defrauded by a landlord who might have given a verbal consent but did not confirm it in writing.
If he gave a verbal consent, unless the lease specified that the consent would have to be in writing, then the tenant would not have broken his covenant. I also think that the tenant who would be told verbally by the landlord to go ahead and improve would have a case against the landlord. But that is not what this is dealing with. This is a case where the tenant has gone on with improvements although consent has been refused, unreasonably if you like, but still refused. That is what this amendment deals with, and I think it would be a dangerous and a very bad principle to introduce.
Suppose the case to which Deputy Lemass referred arose, where a tenant contends that he had the verbal consent of the landlord to go on with the improvements and where subsequently the landlord or his successors denied any consent, upon whom would the onus lie? The landlord might have died or disappeared, and it might be denied that such consent was given. Injustice might very well be done to the tenant, who would have made considerable improvements in the belief that he had the consent of the landlord to do so. Later he might find that he was not in a position to prove that he had consent. Upon whom would the onus lie?
The general principle of law is that he who asserts must prove. Anybody declaring that such a thing is true must prove that it is true; the onus will be upon him.
Surely that is sufficient safeguard against any evil that might arise of which the Minister may be afraid. The onus falls on the tenant to prove that he improved the place and the improvements were reasonable. He carried out improvements at his own risk and he knows he will be involved in litigation simply because he has chanced his hand in making improvements, for which he did not get the consent of the landlord. He goes to court and there he has to make his case in order to prove that what he did was reasonable.
Surely these are obstacles enough without going any further to establish in the Bill, by leaving out the amendment the right of a landlord to be unreasonable.
The right of a landlord to keep his tenant to a bargain which he had entered into.
Even unreasonably?
I do not want to go back and alter the condition of affairs to the detriment of anybody by legislation of this kind. I do not want that a person who has deliberately broken his covenant should now discover the breach of his covenant justified. I assure the Deputy that I considered the matter very carefully.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment 8:
In page 10, section 17 (4), to delete all the words from the word "that," in line 32 to the end of the sub-section and substitute the words "the payment to him by the tenant by whom such application is made of the expenses, calculated according to the prescribed scale, incurred by him in relation to the giving of such certificate.
This also carries out a promise which I made on the Committee Stage. It modifies the section as it stands and provides that rules shall be made setting out what costs are to be paid in the circumstances set out in section 17.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment 9:
In page 10, line 44, section 18 (1), immediately before the word "used" to insert the word "bona-fide."
This is in accordance with the promise I made to Deputy Thrift that we would deal as far as we could with bogus businesses as distinct from real genuine businesses.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment 10:
In page 10, line 50, section 18 (1) (a), to delete the words "five years," and substitute the words "one year."
This is a suggestion put forward I think by Deputy Lemass and Deputy Geoghegan and substitutes one year for five years. It was pointed out that a business tenant holding under a lease for two, three or four years would have to be in occupation for seven years before qualifying for the right to a new tenancy.
Amendment put and agreed to.
The following amendments appeared on the Order Paper:
10a. In page 11, section 21, before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
"(2) Where an application for a new tenancy under this Part of this Act is refused on one of the grounds mentioned in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of sub-section (1) of this section and the landlord of the tenement to which such application relates does not within a reasonable time carry out the intention, agreement, or purpose (as the case may be) on account of which such application was refused, such landlord shall be guilty of contempt of Court and be punishable accordingly."
—Aire Dlí agus Cirt.
10b. In page 11, section 21, before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
"(2) Where the Court decides under paragraphs (a) or (b) of the preceding sub-section that a tenant is not entitled to a new tenancy, it may by order fix a period of time within which the landlord shall complete the pulling down and rebuilding or reconstruction of the premises, or the carrying out of the scheme of development (as the case may be), and in the event of the landlord failing to comply with the terms of such order, the Court may, on the application of the tenant, order the granting of a new tenancy in the tenement to such tenant, without regard to any compensation which may have been paid."
—Seán F. Lemass.
11. In page 12, to add at the end of section 21 a new sub-section as follows:—
"(3) Where the Court is satisfied—
(a) that the tenant of a tenement to which this Part of this Act applies would but for paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of sub-section (1) of this section be entitled under this Part of this Act to a new tenancy in such tenement, and
(b) that the landlord will not require possesion of such tenement for the purposes mentioned in the said paragraph (a) or the said paragraph (b) (as the case may be) until after the expiration of a period of at least six months,
the Court shall, if such tenant so requests, continue the existing tenancy of such tenant in such tenement until such tenancy is terminated by such landlord for the purposes aforesaid by the service of six months' previous notice in writing, but subject to the condition that such continuation of such tenancy shall be without prejudice to the right of such tenant to relief under this Act on such termination of such continued tenancy."— (Aire Dlí agus Cirt.)
11a. In page 12, to add at the end of Section 21 a new sub-section as follows:—
"(3) Where compensation for disturbance is awarded under this section to the tenant of a tenement and such compensation is not paid within the time limited in that behalf by this Act, such tenant shall be entitled, after the expiration of the said time so limited and before the payment of such compensation, to renew his application for a new tenancy under this Part of this Act in such tenement, and the foregoing sub-sections of this section shall not apply in respect of such application and the institution of such application shall operate as a discharge of the said award of compensation for disturbance."
I move amendment 10a. There are several amendments dealing with the same point, that is how a landlord should be dealt with who avails himself of the exceptions in this Section 21, that is where he wants the benefit of vacant possession for the purpose of rebuilding or carrying out the development of property, makes a bogus claim and gets the tenant out. I have made a suggestion in this amendment, and Deputy Lemass makes a suggestion in Amendment 10b. There are other amendments dealing very much with the same question, such as Amendment 11a in my name, and Amendment No. 11, also in my name. The suggestion I make in these amendments is that if a landlord wants houses for a building scheme and gets possession of one house for that purpose, the other houses will not fall into possession for some little time, and of course he will not be able to start his building scheme until he has got possession of all the houses necessary for the reconstruction scheme, or whatever scheme of that nature he requires, and that the tenant should not be put out of occupation until the very last minute when it is necessary, and that then, if the landlord acts towards one tenant or towards a series of tenants in an incorrect fashion, that is to say, if he gets possession by making a bogus case in court, that the court should deal with the person who has deliberately misused the procedure, who has deliberately gone into court and made the case that he required these premises for an estate improvement, and all the time did not require them for that improvement; in other words, for getting possession under false pretences. I suggest that it should be left to the court to deal with him, that it should be considered to be a contempt of court, and the Judge will, I have no doubt, deal severely with a person who has so misused the process of the court. I think that that would be an ample remedy in cases like that.
Deputy Lemass, though he would achieve the same purpose, I do not think is achieving it altogether in a satisfactory manner. We are both aiming at achieving the same purpose. He says that the tenant shall be entitled to have a new tenancy if he so wishes without having regard to any compensation which may have been paid. It seems to me that that goes very far. Suppose the landlord has paid £2,000 or £3,000—he may have paid even a larger sum—and he has not carried out his scheme. The tenant has received full compensation for his loss of good-will, etc. That he should get back his premises and at the same time have the compensation for what he has not lost appears to me to be rather rewarding the tenant too highly, giving him something which really is not his. I do not think that would be a good principle. I think it is better that it should be left to the discretion of the court to punish the landlord who has deceived the court, and I think possession by the court of ample powers to punish the landlord who has deceived the court will prevent any landlord from endeavouring to deceive the court.
The Minister says that we are both aiming at the same thing, but that he does not like the method I have devised to achieve it. I submit, however, that he has not achieved it at all. Although he has taken two or three shots at the mark he has missed it each time. In the first amendment he proposes to punish a landlord after he secures possession on a bogus statement. The actual punishment is of no value to the tenant who has been deprived of his tenancy in consequence of a bogus statement, and who is not getting any redress in consequence of this particular sub-section. He may have the satisfaction of knowing that the landlord is going to go to prison for contempt of court, but that is not going to offset the loss he would be at in consequence of the landlord's crime.
In addition, there is no guarantee that the landlord will be punished at all. On whom is the obligation to rest of reporting to the Court that the landlord has not completed the improvements in a reasonable time? And what is a "reasonable time"? It seems to that that section will be completely inoperative where the landlord makes a bogus statement and as a result regains possession of the tenement. He does not proceed with the reconstruction or the rebuilding which he was expected to do, and which he told the court he was going to do. What happens? Must a common informer go to the court and point out that this particular landlord regained possession on the strength of the statement, and that he has not in fact proceeded to rebuild or reconstruct, and demand that the landlord in question be brought up for contempt of court? How is the person who lodges the information to know what the court will hold to be a reasonable time? The phrase used here is "reasonable time." What is a "reasonable time"? In my opinion, the section as it stands will be of no benefit to anybody and of no danger to the landlord.
Under amendment 11a, which is the second shot the Minister took at the same mark, he again missed it. The Minister is providing in this case that if compensation for disturbance of the tenant is awarded and not paid, the tenant may apply to the court for a new tenancy. But in this particular case the landlord may have proceeded with the reconstruction, and by the time the tenant applies for a new tenancy the building may not be there. It is going to be of no advantage to the tenant if he has lost his compensation to get a new tenancy in a building that has been demolished. In order to do that, he has to take the risk of having his award for compensation discharged before he institutes proceedings for the new tenancy. The amendment says: "And the institution of such application shall operate as a discharge of the said award." He must throw away whatever advantage the award is to him, even though he has not got the compensation, on the chance that the court will favourably consider his application for a new tenancy in a building which has been demolished in the meantime.
In his third shot the Minister hit something and that amendment appears to be all right, but it does not meet the case that the tenant, who has been deprived of a tenancy as a result of the bogus statement of the landlord, for whom some redress should be available. I suggest if the landlord has regained possession of a tenement on a statement made to the court that he was going to reconstruct and rebuild, and if in fact, he does not do so, that the tenant should be given the right to apply to the court for a new tenancy in that building, and as a particular punishment of the landlord I would provide that the application may be granted without regard to any compensation that might have been paid. It is put in as a punishment to the landlord and I suggest that if the amendment is put in as I drafted it no landlord would take the chance of regaining possession of a tenement on a bogus statement. He stands to lose too much. Whereas if the Minister's series of amendments are inserted he may get away with it and, in fact, lose nothing at all.
As far as amendment 11a is concerned, though I may not have made myself clear, that really deals with the same matter as Deputy Lemass is dealing with under amendment 16a:
In page 18, section 34, to insert after sub-section (1) a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) Where compensation for disturbance under this Act is payable by a landlord to a tenant and such compensation is not so paid within the time specified in this section, such tenant may apply to the Court for an order declaring such tenant entitled to a new tenancy in the tenement in respect of which such compensation is payable.
That really is the cor-relative amendment to amendment 11a. I think the amendment I bring forward, 11a, is much more in favour of the tenant and against a defaulting landlord than the Deputy's amendment, because under my amendment it is stated "the foregoing sub-sections of this section shall not apply in respect of such application." If the landlord has made default in payment of the money, and if the tenant goes to the Court, the landlord is completely done out of all the benefits of the preceeding sub-sections, that is to say whether he wants a building scheme or not, once he has made default in payment of the amount, he is precluded from raising these defences again. Under the amendment of Deputy Lemass he will be able to raise these defences again. As far as the amendment is concerned, that is contempt of court, the person who would bring that before the Court would be the tenant.
It might happen that the tenant would not do so. But I think, in most cases, the tenant, if he had suffered loss, would bring the matter before the Court. I think that is in human nature. It also has occurred to me that the argument of Deputy Lemass was possibly a little bit against his own contention, because if the tenant is the tenant of a house that, as he says, has been demolished, he would go back there and get a new tenancy. As the Deputy pointed out, it would be no use to him in that case. If a tenant has taken a new lease or new premises—we must assume that most business people who are moved from premises will start business somewhere else in the neighbourhood—then the right to get a fresh tenancy in his own premises will be of no use to him at all. Even if he did go back I do not like the principle of getting a new tenancy and getting what may be a colossal sum of money paid into his pocket in addition. That does not seem to me to be right. If a person has suffered no loss, as might very well be the case, he might get thousands of pounds. That does not seem to me to be quite right and fair.
As far as I can see, amendment 11a does not relate to this particular matter at all. What we are discussing is the position of a tenant who has lost a tenancy because of a bogus deed of the landlord. Amendment 11a does not refer to that, but refers to a matter in respect to Section 34, the actual payment of compensation. What I am suggesting is that the tenant should have the right to claim a new tenancy if the compensation awarded is not paid. The only thing that arises in connection with that is what was referred to a short time ago, the operation of the concluding words in the amendment: "the institution of such applications shall operate as a discharge of the said award of compensation for disturbance." Does it not seem harsh to leave the tenant in the position that, having failed to get his compensation, he cannot apply to the courts for a new tenancy without at the beginning surrendering his claim to the compensation already awarded?
It is on the same principle that he is not to get double. If he finds that he is not getting his compensation, or that having got his compensation it has become, so to speak, worthless to him, then he can go to the Court and get a new tenancy. He need not operate that if he likes, but he may always claim for his compensation.
But suppose he does not get the new tenancy? If he fails to get the new tenancy the amount awarded as compensation is already discharged.
He must get the new tenancy because the defence of the landlord to the new tenancy has been swept away.
Amendment 10a agreed to.
Amendment 10b not moved.
Amendment 11. In page 12 to add at the end of section 21 a new sub-section as follows:—
(3) Where the Court is satisfied—
(a) that the tenant of a tenement to which this Part of this Act applies would but for paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of sub-section (1) of this section be entitled under this Part of this Act to a new tenancy in such tenement, and
(b) that the landlord will not require possession of such tenement for the purposes mentioned in the said paragraph (a) or the said paragraph (b) (as the case may be) until after the expiration of a period of at least six months,
the court shall, if such tenant so requests, continue the existing tenancy of such tenant in such tenement until such tenancy is terminated by such landlord for the purposes aforesaid by the service of six months' previous notice in writing, but subject to the condition that such continuation of such tenancy shall be without prejudice to the right of such tenant to relief under this Act on such termination of such continued tenancy. —(Minister for Justice).
Agreed to.
I Move amendment 11a.
In page 12, to add at the end of section 21 a new sub-section as follows:—
(3) Where compensation for disturbance is awarded under this section to the tenant of a tenement and such compensation is not paid within the time limited in that behalf by this Act, such tenant shall be entitled, after the expiration of the said time so limited and before the payment of such compensation, to renew his application for a new tenancy under this Part of this Act in such tenement, and the foregoing sub sections of this section shall not apply in respect of such application and the institution of such application shall operate as a discharge of the said award of compensation for disturbance.
With regard to the point that I raised on this amendment earlier, I would like if the Minister would look into the exact significance of it and make sure that there is no such danger; I hope he will do that before the Bill goes to the Seanad.
I do not think there is, but I promise the Deputy that I will examine the matter very carefully. If I see that there is any danger of that kind I will endeavour to have it set right elsewhere.
What I suggest to the Minister is that instead of saying what is in the amendment that the granting of the application will discharge the award. In that case the tenant cannot lose the award unless he gets the new tenancy.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 12:
In page 13, line 62, section 25 (5), to delete the words "be bound by" and substitute the words "have regard to" and delete all from the word "unless", line 63, to the end of the sub-section.
This amendment brings this section into line with previous sections. Instead of being bound up the court will have regard to the reports which are made to it by the Valuation Department.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 13:
In page 14, before section 26 (d) to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
"(d) if the Court finds that such tenant is not entitled to such new tenancy and the notice of intention to claim relief on which the application is grounded does not include a claim in the alternative for compensation under this Act, the court may on the application of such tenant, if the court having regard to all the circumstances of the case thinks proper so to do, amend on such terms as the court thinks proper the said notice of intention to claim relief by inserting therein a claim in the alternative for compensation under this Act and thereupon deal with such claim in accordance with the next preceding paragraph of this section."
This is an amendment that I undertook on the Committee Stage to bring in.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 14:
In page 15, line 54, Section 28 (c), to delete the words "the duration of such tenancy" and substitute the words "subject to the next preceding paragraph of this section, the duration of such new tenancy shall not, without the consent of the tenant, be less than a term of fifty years and".
This is an amendment that I am introducing at the suggestion of Deputy O'Connell. On the Committee Stage I expressed my doubts as to whether it would be a very helpful amendment from the tenant's point of view. But as the point then discussed was pressed very strongly I said I would introduce an amendment of this nature. Deputy Lemass is bringing forward amendment 13a. While I thought that Deputy O'Connell's amendment was not very helpful—in fact that it was harmful and not quite fair to the tenant—I think that Deputy Lemass' amendment goes a little bit too far the other way, because it gives the tenant the absolute right to decide. He would be one of the parties to the court proceedings. The Deputy's amendment would give him the absolute right to decide as to the length of the tenancy. I think that the Bill was very much better as it stood originally. It left a discretion to the Court that is should not exceed 99 years, and that then the Court would do what was just between the parties without any particular period being laid down. In the interests of justice between the parties, I think it would be much better to leave the Bill as it was, but as I undertook to introduce this amendment I am now doing so. I do not think it is going to be a helpful amendment.
It is my view that the amendment standing in my name is the one that Deputy O'Connell intended to suggest, though in fact he suggested the amendment which the Minister has introduced. The amendment that the Minister is introducing is one that the House should be very slow to pass, because it puts the tenant in the position that he cannot refuse a tenancy for fifty years if it is offered to him. A tenant may not desire to be bound up for that period. A tenant who, in present circumstances, takes a new tenancy is to some extent engaging in a gamble in the sense that rents may go up or may go down. He has to exercise his own discretion as to whether he wants a long tenancy in the expectation of rents rising or a short one in the expectation of rents falling.
I suggest that a discretion should be given to the tenant, that he should be allowed to elect whether he wants a five-year, a ten-year, or a ninety-nine-year tenancy. If, in the election he makes, his gamble comes off, he should be allowed to profit by his good judgment. If it does not come off, then the landlord will profit. I think it would be much better to give a discretion to the tenant and let him say how long he wants a new tenancy for.
There are two persons to be considered—the owner of the premises, who is the landlord, and the tenant—and I do not think that you should, so to speak, put the landlord completely at the mercy of the tenant, because what the tenant might do would be this: he would go in for two or three years, and at the end of that period come back to the court and say: "I will take it for another year." He would be always entitled to go back and back. He would take it over for a sufficiently long period to qualify himself under the Act. I do not think that would be quite fair to the landlord. He is now having a statutory tenancy imposed on him, without his being consulted as to what he thinks would be a proper letting period. I do not know whether the Deputy would be inclined to enter into a bargain—that I withdraw my amendment, and that he should withdraw his, thus allowing the section to stand as it stood originally, leaving it to the discretion of the court to do justice between landlord and tenant.
I can see this difficulty in this connection, that the court might be unreasonable in the view of the tenant. The court is dealing with a case in which the tenant has a right to a new tenancy, in which, say, the rent shall be £300 a year. The tenant goes to the court to get a renewal of the tenancy, in default of agreement, and if the court says, "We will give you a tenancy for 99 years at a rent of £300 a year," the tenant might be slow to enter into such a contract, as if there was a fall in rents he would be bound to lose. On the other hand, if he refused the offer of the court he might lose his right to a tenancy altogether.
What is the position in that connection? I can see that at present people will be very slow to enter into long tenancies at existing rents. On the other hand the court might feel that it was obliged to fix a long period in order to prevent these continuous renewals. It is the tenant's interests, in my opinion, that should be considered. This is a case in which it is agreed that the tenant has a right to a new tenancy and I do not see that the landlord can have much objection to the duration of the new tenancy being decided by the tenant, seeing that the landlord has to give it in any case.
It would be rather hard on the landlord if he had to give a renewal every two or three years. Suppose the tenant asks for a very short term, just enough to qualify him for renewal. Then he would come for renewal after renewal.
It need not go before the court unless there is no agreement.
Then you would have no longer than a three years term. I do not think it would be quite fair to the landlord that he would have to let his premises on such a short letting, because, after all, if you are going to make a fair bargain between people, there must be a reasonably long term letting, not a letting that can be renewed from three year periods to three year periods by one of the parties. That is possibly what the tenant might do and the landlord would not know the value of his property at all. If you let premises for twenty-one years you know where you are for the next twenty-one years, and if you want to borrow money you have got a security in this letting on which you can borrow. You know you have got a steady income for twenty-one years. On the other hand if the premises are only let for three years they may be vacant at the end of the three years, for perhaps a year or longer, and you do not know where you are. I think the landlord is entitled to a reasonably long letting. I do not think it would be quite fair to him to compel him to give a tenancy for so short a term. It would mean that he was always getting short term lettings.
The Minister apparently has made up his mind not to yield to the amendment which has been tabled by Deputy Lemass. I am not vain enough to think that anything I can say would alter what appears to be the fixed attitude of the Minister in regard to the amendment of Deputy Lemass, but I am not entirely without hope that the Minister may see his way slightly to alter his own amendment. The Minister has expressed the view that it would not be fair to the landlord to be called upon for new tenancies every two or three years. In certain cases, the force of what the Minister says is manifest. That might be unreasonable to the landlord but it is a long cry from two or three years to fifty years. If the Minister, as I rather anticipate, cannot see his way to adopt the structure of the amendment of Deputy Lemass, I would suggest that he might see his way to reduce the period suggested in his own amendment from fifty to thirty years. That would get rid of the grievance that the Minister has indicated. At the same time it would prevent what might be a very great hardship in many cases, of having a fifty years term inflicted upon a tenant who did not want it. If the Minister would advance on that line I think that possibly he would hold the scales evenly.
As I stated before, I am not at all enamoured of this fifty year period. I stated on the Committee Stage, I think in several instances, through I was willing to accept it when pressed on me, that I did not think that fifty years would be fair to the tenant. There might be instances in which it would work out unfairly. If the house is willing to adopt Deputy Geoghegan's suggestion I accept it. I think twenty-one years would be an ample period.
That is my own personal feeling. I mentioned thirty because I thought the way in which the Minister's mind was working was for a tolerably longer period.
I think twenty-one years is a very reasonable time to have.
Amendment 13a, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment 14, as amended, agreed to.
I move amendment 15:—
In page 16, lines 5 and 6, Section 28 (f), to delete the words "circumstances of normal competition" and substitute the words "such circumstances that the supply of similar tenements is sufficient to meet the demand and the competition therefor is normal."
I promised to alter slightly the words "circumstances of normal competition." I have modified them in this amendment and I think it meets what Deputy Byrne objected to.
Mr. Byrne
We are in a most extraordinary position. When the Bill was passing through Committee a certain amendment was moved in my name and accepted by the House. Upon reading the Bill, as presented now, I find that it includes positively seven-eighths of the original section of the Bill, as introduced on Committee, to which section I most vehemently objected. I particularly objected in the section of the original Bill to the words giving the court power to fix such a rent as a willing lessee not already in occupation would give and a willing lessor would take, on the basis of vacant possession. The amendment I moved, which was accepted by the Minister, appears on the Official Report, Vol. 39, page 834. That amendment, as accepted by the House, reads:
(f) The gross rent shall be the rent which may be fixed by the court having regard to the letting values of tenements of a similar character in the immediate vicinity and to the other terms of such tenancy but without regard to any good-will which may exist in respect of such tenement.
That was passed and accepted by the House. Why does that amendment, as passed and accepted by the House, not appear in the printed Bill which the House has now under consideration? It appears to me to be a most anomalous position and I cannot understand it. If the Minister wanted to improve upon the amendment the House accepted, it was open to him to improve upon it in a reasonable way. But surely the Minister was bound by the acceptance of the amendment to insert in the present Bill the exact words of the amendment which the House originally accepted. I think the Minister has acted ultra vires.
I have not acted at all.
Mr. Byrne
Whoever acted for the Minister acted ultra vires.
Nobody acted.
Mr. Byrne
The Bill before the House is not the Bill as passed in Committee. I want to know why the Bill as passed in Committee does not appear before the House. Before I discuss the amendment I should like an answer to that question.
The Deputy moved an amendment. That amendment was not carried. I know that it is stated in the Official Report that the amendment was put and agreed to, but that is a misprint or a verbal error. If the records of the House are referred to, or if the Deputy appeals to his own recollection, I think it will be found that the amendment was not agreed to.
Will the Deputy give the date of the Official Report to which he refers?
Mr. Byrne
24th June, Vol. 39, page 834. That records the acceptance of my amendment.
Did the Deputy move in his amendment to delete the original paragraph?
Mr. Byrne
I did.
Did the Deputy consult the proceedings of the House?
On a point of order, I suggest that until this point is cleared up we cannot possibly deal with this amendment.
What is the point?
Whether the record is correct or incorrect.
The Deputy is referring to the Debates of the House and not to the Journal of the House.
Mr. Byrne
Are we to take it from the Chair that this report is incorrect?
The Deputy is not to take any such meaning from my remarks. I have not said whether the report is correct or incorrect, because I do not know whether it is correct or not.
How does the Leas-Cheann Comhairle suggest that this should be settled?
It is not for me to make suggestions. I am dealing with amendment number 15.
If the House has enacted something, and if a mistake has been made in the Bill, the House is bound by what it did and not by the mistake made in the Bill.
Will the Deputy refer me to the Journal of the House in which the decision is recorded?
Will the Leas-Cheann Comhairle wait until the Journal is obtained and checked?
If the Deputy will refer to the Journal of the House, Number 47, page 263 he will find that, on the amendment moved by Deputy Bryne, the question was put and negatived, Deputy Byrne dissenting.
Mr. Byrne
Will you quote the number of the amendment?
The Deputy can look up the record for 24th June.
Amendment 71.
The record of the House shows that the Deputy's amendment was put and negatived, the Deputy dissenting.
The Deputy had more than one amendment.
Mr. Byrne
There were two amendments moved by me in that Debate. One was negatived and one accepted. The amendment which was negatived was not number 71. The amendment accepted by the House was number 71. That appears in the Official Report.
Will the Deputy read his amendment?
Mr. Byrne
I moved an amendment which reads as follows:
To delete paragraph (f) and substitute the following new paragraph:
(f) the gross rent shall be the rent which may be fixed by the court, having regard to the letting values of tenements of a similar character in the immediate vicinity, and to the other terms of such tenancy, but without regard to any goodwill which may exist in respect of such tenement.
That amendment was accepted and the Official Report states that the amendment was put and agreed to.
There is no doubt about that.
I confess I was looking at the wrong amendment. I am sorry.
Mr. Byrne
That was what I was suggesting.
The position is as the Deputy stated, that this amendment was put and agreed to by the House. That is to delete paragraph (f) and to substitute what is in his amendment.
Which does not appear in the text of the Bill before us.
Will the Deputy keep quiet for a moment? It appears on the records of the House that Deputy Byrne's amendment, as read out, was put and was agreed to by the House.
Mr. Byrne
What is the position when that does not appear in the Bill to-day?
The position is that everything that has been done in regard to this Stage of the Bill is out of order.
Deputy MacEntee is not the judge of order yet.
And possibly never will be—
Deputy MacEntee will please sit down.
What are we to do?
That is a matter for the Chair and not for the Deputy.
I suggest that we cannot go on as matters stand, and therefore I move to report progress in order to consider the situation which has arisen in view of the fact that a Bill has been put into the hands of Deputies—
The Deputy cannot argue. Is he seeking to move a motion?
Yes, I am moving to report progress in order to consider the situation.
I am not accepting that motion.
You are acting in a grossly irregular manner.
The Deputy is completely out of order.
I am not out of order.
The Deputy must submit to my ruling.
We will have to submit to a lot of injustice from you. I hope you will submit yourself to the electors soon.
What does the Leas-Cheann Comhairle suggest we should do?
I would suggest that amendments 15 and 23 be postponed.
There is also the possibility that the records of the House are wrong.
That is one reason why the amendments should be postponed.
It is one reason why the whole thing should be looked into.
I suggest there are two courses open to the Minister. One would be to adjourn the further consideration of the Bill until it was properly printed according to the manner in which the House dealt with it in Committee. The other would be for the Minister himself now to take the Bill as amended in Committee and to proceed with it as so amended. Either of these two things could be done.
Would the Minister be prepared to postpone the consideration of the amendments to the Bill?
Here we have an amendment dealing with a particular section and we will not complete this Bill until Friday. We have given that undertaking. The Report Stage will be adjourned. I submit that the proper course to take would be to postpone the consideration of this amendment and any other amendment dealing with this sub-section and to proceed with the other amendments.
There is one point I would like to be clear upon. From the discussion that appears in the Official Report it is quite clear that Deputy Byrne's amendment was defeated. It was opposed by the Minister and by this side of the House. Deputy Byrne could not have carried it against the united opinion. Therefore, I think it is the records of the House that are wrong and not this Bill.
I am afraid on this occasion it was the Leas-Cheann Comhairle that was wrong in reading the records. Just now Deputy Byrne moved to delete paragraph (f) and to substitute the paragraph he had on the Paper. The question was put in the form that the words proposed to be deleted stand part. That is, that the words that the Deputy proposed to delete should stand in the section. That question was put and agreed to. Therefore, the Deputy's amendment was defeated. I am afraid that in my reading the amendment hurriedly I took it that the Deputy's amendment was put in the direct manner, rather than in the other manner. In my hasty reading I thought it was carried. But it is quite clear it was put in this form:—"That the words proposed to be deleted stand part." That was agreed to by the House and, therefore, the Deputy's amendment to leave out the words was defeated so that the record and the Bill are quite right and the Deputy and myself were wrong.
The Official Report was wrong.
The Report is a little misleading.
But the journal of the House is quite correct.
Mr. Byrne
Will the Leas-Cheann Comhairle now rule what the position exactly is?
The amendment now before the House is quite all right.
Mr. Byrne
Can we discuss that amendment?
Mr. Byrne
When this Bill was originally introduced, I said that the whole kernel of the Bill was contained in the sub-section about the fixation of fair rents. I pointed out that I had a most rooted objection to the words appearing in this section of the Bill fixing the fair rent, and the powers of the court to fix a fair rent, under such conditions that the rent should be what a willing lessee, not in occupation, would give and what a willing lessor would take. I pointed out that this simply meant the full letting market value of the premises. I pointed out that I had experience of what happened in a case where leases expired and when premises came to be offered, as they will be offered under the Bill, on the basis of vacant possession. I pointed out that where the rent originally was £120, it was increased to £360 and £400, and in some instances to £500. The Minister intends to perpetuate in this Bill that condition of affairs. If that is so, although I sit on the Government Benches, I will again go into the lobby against them. If a business tenant is going to get a lease on the full letting market value of the premises then this Bill is absolutely worthless. Every appeal has been made to the Minister to remedy this section, which is the kernel of the Bill, and he has turned a deaf ear. First he introduced into the Bill the words "in circumstances of normal competition." That met with such criticism that he was forced to withdraw it, and now he makes a complete volte face, and "in circumstances of normal competition" appears again in this section of the Bill. I ask any lawyer in this House to interpret what a fair rent will be under the Bill as it now stands. If to-day, in any of the leading streets in the city, a business premises becomes subject to the operations of this Bill, and a tenant is paying on an old rental at the rate of £120 a year, and is asked to come into court and have his rent fixed under this section, what will it be fixed at? Before coming to the House to-day, I consulted several lawyers upon this section of the Bill and they were unanimous in saying, as the Bill now reads, the insertion of the additional words in the amendment will mean that tenants will have to pay a higher rent. I must confess I could not interpret the section at all. It is to me an enigma, and the position of a professional man who appears for or on behalf of tenant or landlord under this section will be hopeless.
We want clear-cut, definite principles and the fixing of a fair rent. This thing has been going on since 1906, and business tenants have never received a fair rent. In 1931 they are not going to receive a fair rent, and if the Minister is not inclined to meet public opinion, to meet the demands of justice and to give tenants a reasonable rent under this Bill, it were better that this Town Tenants Bill were never introduced. Looking at that section of the Bill as it now stands, anybody knows that all the tenants are going to get under this section is the full market letting value of the premises. The Minister inserts the words "such circumstances that the supply of similar tenements is sufficient to meet the demands and the competition therefor is normal." Will the Minister say in how many cases will normal competition exist in the City of Dublin for the letting of premises? Will the Minister say if there is 2½ per cent. of the streets in the City of Dublin where those wonderful amendments of his would apply? Is it not self-evident that 99 per cent. of the cases to be dealt with under this section of the Bill will not be affected under the amendment which the Minister has tabled for our consideration today? I do not know what to say about this Bill. If it is going to be mere camouflage, as far as business people are concerned, then the sooner they know where they are the better, and I, for one, will take the trouble, and it will be pleasure for me, to enlighten them.
Deputy Byrne did not touch the amendment before the House in his speech at all. The question before the House is whether the words "circumstances of normal competition" are a better set of words than "such circumstances that the supply of similar tenements is sufficient to meet the demands and the competition therefor is normal." That is the one question before the House at the moment. Deputy Byrne did not address himself to it at all. As a matter of fact I expanded those words, "circumstances of normal competition," into the present form rather more at the instance of Deputy Byrne than of anyone else. As to the merits of the section as a whole, they do not arise here. As far as Deputy Byrne's statements go, though I think they are irrelevant, I would like to answer them in two words. In the first place the tenants will not pay the full letting value of the premises, because the full letting value would be the premises plus the goodwill. They will have to pay nothing for the goodwill. As far as starting the propaganda that this is not going to be of any use to tenants, I think if it had any effect at all, which I do not think it would have, it would have an effect prejudicial to the tenant.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment 16. In page 16, line 22, section 28 (h), to delete the words "and decorating" and substitute the words "for purposes of preservation but not painting for purposes of mere decoration."
Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendment 16a not moved.
I move amendment 17:
In page 19 to add at the end of section 34 a new sub-section as follows:—
(4) Compensation for improvements payable by a landlord or a superior landlord to a tenant shall be a first charge (in priority to all other mortgages, charges, and incumbrances whatsoever) on the interest of such landlord or superior landlord (as the case may be) in the tenement in respect of which such compensation is payable.
This is an amendment I promised to introduce in connection with compensation for improvements being a first charge upon the property improved.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 17a. In page 20, line 31, Section 39, to insert before the word "notice" the word "such."
The word "such" was dropped out in the printing or drafting.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 18:
In page 22, line 16, Section 44 (2) (c), to delete the word "thirty-one" and substitute the word "twenty."
After considerable discussion in the House we came rather to an agreement that thirty-one years should be cut down to twenty years as the term for which a lease must be made in order to be a proprietary lease.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 18a.
In page 22, line 18, Section 44, to delete the word "two" and substitute the word "five."
I do not think the case will often arise, but I will accept the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 19:—
In page 22, line 23, Section 44 (2) (d), immediately after the word "lease" to insert the words "or partly in consideration of the expenditure of a sum of money by the lessee on the premises demised by such lease or partly in consideration of both such payment and such expenditure."
This makes expenditure on repairs and improvement count similar to a fine. I promised to introduce this amendment on the Committee Stage. It appears, I submit to the House, just and fair.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 20:—
In page 22, line 24, Section 44 (2) (e), before the word "was" to insert the words "or expended or the total of the said sums of money so respectively paid and expended (as the case may be)."
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 21:—
In page 22, lines 24 and 25, Section 44 (2) (e), to delete the word "twenty-five" and substitute the word "fifteen."
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 22:—
In page 22, Section 46 (1), to delete all from the word "The," line 52, to the word "Act," line 54, and substitute the following words: "where the terms on which a reversionary lease under this Part of this Act is to be granted are settled by the court, the following provisions shall have effect."
This is to enable the parties to agree between themselves without the necessity of going to court. This is on the suggestion of Deputy Thrift.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 22a:—
In page 23, line 3, Section 46 (1) (e), to delete all words after the word "be" to the end of line 4 and substitute the words "one quarter of the gross rent as hereinafter defined" and to delete paragraph (e), lines 17 to 29 inclusive.
This raises a question on which we had a good deal of discussion on previous Stages of the Bill. I think, as far as I can recollect, the result of that discussion was that the Minister felt rather favourable to the principles which the amendment seeks to bring into effect but found a difficulty in getting at any figure. I ventured to put down for this Stage a particular figure for his consideration and, I hope, acceptance.
The point is this: that the Bill, as it stands, will I believe in practice lead to the rents under these kinds of leases here dealt with being continued to the ground landlord without any increase at all; that is to say, that leases which were given many years ago at a certain figure would have to be renewed at precisely the same figure for the ground landlord. In other words, the value of the ground landlord's interest has increased. The interest on the lapse of a lease will be taken from him, and the middleman who has held this lease in the knowledge that when the lease terminated it would be subject to a new rent, to be fixed by the ground landlord, will get a pleasant surprise. He will get a lease practically in perpetuity at the same rent as before. That does not seem to be equitable. Even with regard to the value of money when these original leases were made, a rent fixed at a certain figure then would have quite a different value today and probably for many years to come. The Bill as it stands takes no account of that whatever. Neither does it take any account of the fact that in very many cases the rents fixed for these leases were fixed low in order to encourage building. For that specific purpose the leases were given at a particularly low rent. Now the Bill proposes that though that condition has been fulfilled there is no longer the same reason for having a low rent. That low rent is still to obtain.
That is not what is here.
In estimating the figure which I have put in the amendment, namely, one-quarter of the gross rent, I have tried to follow what is professed to be and what I believe is the object of the Bill, namely, that it should be to suit the practice of the better managed estates and not to be guided by the cases of bad landlordship, which no doubt do exist; and if the figure of one-quarter of the gross rent be allowed as the new rent at which the lease should be given be taken and compared with actual instances of well-managed estates, I think it will be found to be very near indeed to the terms on which these new leases are granted on these estates.
There is one great objection to the plan that is suggested in the Bill. Even if the gross rent has been determined it would be extremely difficult to arrive at the figure for what are called in the Bill "allowances." It will lead to a great deal of discussion, and possibly quite lengthy cases in order to get an estimate of these allowances. All that will be avoided if the suggestion I have made is accepted, but once the gross rent has been determined the rent at which the new lease is to be given is automatically determined. I do not think it can be argued or that it will be held in any section of the House that allowing one-quarter of the gross rent as the landlord's share of the rent is excessive. The difference between a quarter of the gross rent and the rent at which the lease has been given will be a very small thing, but I think it is only fair and equitable that some improvement in the letting value should be allowed to the landlord, and not the whole of it given to the middleman or the tenant.
There is a very great deal to be said in favour of what Deputy Thrift has put forward, that it would save a very considerable amount of very difficult and complicated questions to be decided by the courts, and it would also take very much less of the court's time in settling these rents, and even lead to more settlements outside the court, if we would hit what would be a rule-of-thumb figure. But before we can come to any conclusion like a quarter of the fair rent as being the proper thing for the future we would have to see how that would work out in every case. I am afraid I am not satisfied that it would work out as being just, because it is very difficult to see how it would. Take a number of specimen cases and see what a quarter of the fair rent would be. It is very difficult to know and then to decide as to whether a quarter of that was right or was not right. Therefore, while I say there is a great deal to be said in favour of it, I am afraid I am not sufficiently satisfied that a rule-of-thumb would work out justly in all cases.
I will give the Minister one case. In the Commission's report on this matter there was practically a standard case cited— a ground rent of £5 and a gross rent of £70. The Commission gave as a figure in that case a new rent of £50. Seventeen pounds, ten shillings would be the quarter I am suggesting which is a very close approximation. You cannot secure or guarantee by such a rule that everybody would be satisfied. In many cases the landlord would not secure any benefit at all. I submitted this figure to Deputies on different sides, and I found that the general opinion was that a quarter was a very near guess to what was right and fair. I think the matter is sufficiently important for the Minister to go very closely into to see if he could accede to this figure.
I am not holding out any hopes to the Deputy, but in view of what he said, if with the consent of the House, further consideration of the amendment is postponed until Friday, I will go into it.
Amendment, by leave, postponed.
The following amendments were agreed to:
In page 23, line 10, Section 46 (1) (d), to delete the words "circumstances of normal competition" and substitute the words "in such circumstances that the supply of similar lands is sufficient to meet the demand and the competition therefor is normal"
In page 23, Section 46 (1), to add at the end of the sub-section a new paragraph as follows:
(g) the court may require the intended lessee to expend a specified sum of money in the execution of repairs to the buildings to be comprised in such reversionary lease and may authorise the postponement of the execution of such reversionary lease until such sum of money has been so expended.— (Minister for Justice).
I move amendment 25:
In page 24, Section 48 (3), to delete all from the word "objects", line 25, to the world "say," line 27, and substitute the words "satisfies the Court either."
This was suggested by Deputy Lemass. I really think it is an improvement.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment 25a: In page 24, line 28, Section 48 (3) (a) to delete the word "desires"—(Minister for Justice). Agreed to.
I move amendment 25b:
In page 24, Section 48, to insert immediately after sub-section (3) a new sub-section as follows:
(4) Where an application for a reversionary lease under this Part of this Act is refused on one of the grounds mentioned in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of the next foregoing sub-section of this section and the person objecting to such application on such ground does not within a reasonable time carry out the intention, agreement, or purpose (as the case may be) on account of which such application was refused, such person shall be guilty of contempt of court and be punishable accordingly.
This is very much the same as amendment 10a. It deals with a question where the landlord, on the expiration of a lease, gets possession of the premises. It makes it contempt of court not to carry out the undertaking.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 26, which reads:—
In page 25, line 44, Section 52 (b), before the word "would" to insert the words "that, having regard to the age, condition, character and situation of such tenement, the repairing thereof in accordance with such covenant or agreement."
This amendment is necessary because the age, conditions, character and situation of such tenement would have to be taken into account in determining whether the repairs would involve an expense excessive in proportion to the value of the premises.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendments 27, 27a, 28 and 29, which read as follows:—
27. In page 25, lines 53 and 54, Sections 53 (1), to delete the words "the assignment, subletting, changing, or otherwise parting with the possession" and substitute the words "or restricting the alienation, either generally or in any particular manner."
27a. In page 25, lines 56, 57 and 58, Section 53 (1), to delete the words "prohibiting the assignment, sub-letting, changing, or otherwise parting with the possession" and substitute the words "either (as the case may be) prohibiting or restricting the alienation, either generally or in any particular manner."
28. In page 26, lines 3 and 4, Section 53 (2), to delete the words "against assigning, subletting, changing, or otherwise parting with the possession" and substitute the words "prohibiting or restricting the alteration, either generally or in any particular manner."
29. In page 26, lines 17, 18 and 19, Section 53 (2) (b), to delete the words "assignment, subletting, changing, or otherwise parting with the possession of such tenement" and substitute the words "alienation of such tenement in contravention of such covenant, condition or agreement."
These are substituting a happier form of words while meaning the same thing. They set out a better form of words.
Amendments agreed to.
I move amendment 30, which reads:—
In page 26, Section 53 (2), to add at the end of the sub-section a new paragraph as follows:—
(c) where such alienation would cause a transfer or increase of any rates, taxes, or other burden to or of the lessor, to a proviso that all expenditure incurred by the lessor by reason of such transfer or increase shall be reimbursed by the lessee to the lessor as and when so incurred and shall be recoverable from the lessee by the lessor as rent under such lease."
This amendment deals with the question of where there is sub-letting to a person, principally to a public department, half the rates would be thrown upon the landlord. In that case he should be indemnified. That is only fair.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendments 31, 32 and 33, which read:
In page 26, Section 54 (2) (a), to delete all from the word "nor," line 44, to the word "burden", line 48.
In page 26, line 52, Section 54 (2) (b), to delete the words "such sum as aforesaid in respect of expenses" and substitute the words "any sum authorised by this section," and in lines 53 and 54 to delete the words "(other than such increase of rent as aforesaid)."
In page 26, line 52, Section 54 (2) at the end of the sub-section a new sub-section as follows:—
"(c) if the alteration would cause a transfer or increase of any rates, taxes, or other burden to or of the lessor, to a proviso that all expenditure incurred by the lessor by reason of such transfer or increase shall be reimbursed by the lessee to the lessor as and when so incurred and shall be recoverable from the lessee by the lessor as rent under such lease."
They all deal with exactly the same matter, that is, the increase of taxes or otherwise on a lessor by reason of a changed position.
Amendments agreed to.
Amendments 33a and 34 postponed.
I move amendment 35:
In page 27, before Section 56 (4) to insert a new sub-section as follows:
"(4) The notice of motion or other document originating an application to the court under this section shall contain a statement of the general character, and the number of the buildings proposed to be erected under the building lease for which such application is made."
Deputy Thrift suggested that in any building scheme which was going to be set up, or when land is being taken for building purposes, detailed specifications should be put in. I pointed out at the time it would not be quite fair that the tenant would have to produce plans and specifications. This amendment provides for a general outline without specific details. That is reasonable, so that the owner of the premises would have a general plan before him.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 36:
In page 28, before Section 57 to insert a new section as follows:—
"(1) Where the landlord of a tenement fails or neglects to execute repairs to such tenement which he is bound by covenant, agreement, or otherwise by law to execute and has been called upon by the tenant of such tenement to execute, and such tenant executes such repairs at his own expense, such tenant may—
(a) where the amount expended by him in the execution of such repairs is equal to or less than the amount of the next gale of the rent of such tenement accruing due after such expenditure, set-off the amount so expended, so far as it will extend, against such gale of rent, or
(b) where the amount so expended by such tenant exceeds the amount of such gale of rent, against such gale of rent and every succeeding gale of such rent until by means of such set-off the amount so expended is repaid to such tenant.
(2) where a set-off is made under this section against the whole or part of a gale of rent, the landlord entitled to receive such rent shall, on receiving evidence of the expenditure of the amount so set-off, be bound to give the like receipt for such gale of rent as he would be bound to give if such gale or the whole of such gale had been paid in money."
The amendment 36a by Deputy Lemass deals with the same question— that is, where the landlord has entered into a covenant with the tenant that he would keep the premises in repair and where he is not keeping them in correct repair. The amendment I put forward deals with a case where the landlord fails or neglects to execute repairs to the premises. It is very necessary that the landlord would be bound to carry out his repairs when he is called upon by the tenant. Deputy Lemass suggested that the tenant should go to the court and have an order from the court, and that then he would be at liberty to carry out the repairs, and, if he wishes, the local sanitary authority can be called upon to do it. I do not know whether the Deputy would like me to put the case against his amendment before he would make the case for it himself.
The Minister's amendment is preferable to mine in so far as it eliminates the court. I am considering the case of the tenant who is not able to pay for the repairs himself and who would not get credit. He should be in a position to call upon the sanitary authority to do the repairs which otherwise might not be done.
I am afraid that the latter part of the Deputy's amendment, where he suggests that the sanitary authority would come in, would be found unworkable. The sanitary authority could not come in, because in the first place they would not have any money to do it. They have no authority to raise money for this purpose. I think, however, the powers of the sanitary authority in relation to that matter may be increased in the near future, but at present they have not the powers. I think that the tenant would always be able to borrow the money necessary for the repairs to improve the house. This could be charged upon the house. I think the tenant could always borrow.
I am not pressing the amendment.
Amendment 36 agreed to.
Amendment 36a, by leave, withdrawn.
Before we conclude I would like the Minister to tell us what is his decision in respect of the forty years mentioned in Section 17, on which we had an important discussion on the Committee Stage. From many parts of the House the Minister was pressed for a reduction in that period. He said at the time that he was considering it. Has he considered it; and, if so, with what result?
That stands as it was.
Report Stage fixed for Friday, 23rd October.