I move amendment 2:—
Section 1. To delete in line 20 the words "Town Tenants" and to substitute therefor the words "Landlord and Tenant."
Town Tenants Bill, 1930—Committee Stage.
Title postponed.
Amendment 1 postponed.
SECTION 1.
1.—This Act may be cited as the Town Tenants Act, 1931.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment 3:—
Section 2. After paragraph (d), line 41, to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
(c) such contract of tenancy is not a letting made for or dependent on the continuance of the tenant in any office, employment, or appointment.
The object of the amendment is that if a house has been built for the holder of a particular office, that the person who is in occupation of it should not have any rights under this Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I wish to draw attention to a paragraph that was inserted in this section when the Bill was going through its later stages in the other House. It is paragraph (a) (ii) and reads:—"is situate elsewhere than in an urban area and consists of land not exceeding one statute acre in area and having a house thereon, and".
When this Bill was introduced it was called a Town Tenants Bill. Both the Short Title and the Long Title of the Bill make it clear that it did not embrace any part of the Saorstát except towns, urban areas and villages. The people concerned by the introduction of this paragraph, that is people living in parts of the country occupying land and having a house thereon, had no opportunity of considering how this Bill, which originally was intended for town tenants, would affect them if it were applied to them. It may be a very good thing and, on the other hand, it may result in hardship. What I complain of is that no opportunity was given to the people in the rural areas, before the Bill was passed by the Dáil, to consider the effect of it. It was only in the later stages of the Bill through the Dáil that this paragraph was introduced, changing altogether the nature of the Bill. I put it to the Seanad that a paragraph such as this should not be introduced in this manner. It will be necessary to change the Bill altogether if this paragraph is included. Instead of being a Town Tenants Bill it would be more aptly described as a House Tenants Bill. The limitations which are in the Bill, and which may affect tenants and landlords in rural areas, have not been considered. I understand, also, that the Commission which sat and considered this question had not before them, and did not consider, the question as to how this Bill should be applied to rural areas. There was no application from people living in the rural areas to be included, and I think it is a very bad precedent, in the case of a Bill evidently intended for certain purposes, afterwards, by an amendment, to make it apply to a different purpose altogether.
The Senator is not quite correct in saying that this subject only came under consideration during the later stages of the Bill in the Dáil. The question that he raises in this paragraph was raised on the Second Reading Stage in the Dáil quite a number of months ago now. It was discussed in Committee, on recommittal and again on the Report Stage, so that it really had a considerable amount of discussion over a long period, and cannot be said to have been sprung on the Dáil when the Bill was passing through its later stages there.
I would draw the attention of the Seanad to the Bill as it stood before this paragraph was inserted in the section. At line 42 they will find "the expression ‘urban area' means an area which is either a county or other borough, an urban district, a town, or a village." I would ask the Senator if he can distinguish between a village and a hamlet of two or three houses, or one house at a crossroads. How will the Senator draw a distinction between a village and a hamlet and a cluster of houses at the crossroads and the single house at the crossroads, or the shop at the crossroads, which is carrying on, as one may say, an urban business? All the factors that go to make for legislation in aid of urban residents would apply to the shopkeeper or the householder who had that particular kind of house. In few cases I think it may be a single house. There may be four or five houses there at the crossroads. Unless the Senator can bring forward a definition of a village which would include that group of houses, I think he would be bound to admit that some paragraph of this kind ought to remain in the Bill.
Cathaoirleach
Senator Linehan has not put down an amendment to the section and all that is open to him now is to vote against the section.
Senator Johnson has said practically everything that I intended to say. This matter was very carefully considered in the Dáil. It was considered on stage after stage of the Bill. Senator Linehan is right in saying that the cases of these isolated people who have shops and no land attached did not come before the Town Tenants Commission. They are not an organised body. They are isolated persons. They are not many in number, but if they have spent an amount of money on the improvement of their premises, I do not see any reason why they should not get the same benefits under this Act as persons living in a town. The equities are the same.
Question put and declared carried.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment 4: The section reads "Where the buildings on any land or premises were provided..." My amendment proposes to insert after the word "were" the words "or are."
The effect of this amendment is merely to correct a slight error in the drafting. The section as it stands might be held to apply only where buildings had already been provided by the local authorities. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the section will apply where the buildings were provided before or after the passing of this Act.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 3 as amended agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
I move:—
Section 5, sub-section (3). To add at the end of the sub-section the words "and the Rules of Court applicable to proceedings under the Town Tenants Act, 1906 shall apply to proceedings under this Act."
The amendment is a technical one and it is to meet a temporary necessity. In Section 5 of the Bill, as it was passed by Dáil Eireann, you have this clause:
"(3) Unless and until otherwise provided by Rules of Court, all applications under this Act to the court shall be made by originating or interlocutory (as the case may require) notice of motion."
That I agree with, but I want to add this: "and the Rules of Court applicable to proceedings under the Town Tenants Act, 1906 shall apply to proceedings under this Act." That is, until new Rules are made under this Act that the Rules under the Town Tenants Act of 1906 shall continue to have application. That may seem a very small matter to Senators, but we had considerable difficulty by reason of the fact that in 1924 we passed a Courts of Justice Act setting up a Circuit Court and there were no Rules under it, and the Judges in order to carry on their business with efficiency applied the Rules of the old County Court. After several years of practice applying the old Rules of the County Court a case came up to the Supreme Court and it was decided, as it should have been decided, that the Rules of the County Court did not apply to the Circuit Court. We had great difficulty and there was a great hubbub amongst the lawyers. It is a purely technical matter, a matter on which lawyers are chiefly concerned. If the Minister intends to have Rules under this Act immediately, there is no necessity for my amendment. If he finds it inconvenient to have Rules immediately, perhaps he will accept the amendment. It is intended to make the Bill workable, but if he has some other means of making it workable by means of Rules of Court which are under consideration, he need not accept my amendment.
I think that the Rules under the 1906 Act would not be at all suitable for the working of this Act. I do not see any difficulty in getting Rules out within reasonable time. The Senator will see that there is a great deal of difference between Rules which are made under this Act and the Rules which were made under the Courts of Justice Act. Under the Courts of Justice Act it was necessary to bring them before the Dáil and the Seanad, and that led as we know to two sets of Rules being turned down and another set being suspended for a considerable time. But here the Rules are made by the Minister for Justice after consultation with the President of the Incorporated Law Society, and I do not see any reason why there should be any delay.
As the Minister now says he is prepared to bring in new Rules immediately after consultation with the proper legal authorities I do not press this amendment. I brought it forward for the purpose of calling attention to what happened under the Courts of Justice Act. Now we have a promise from the Minister that that state of affairs will not arise under this Act.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
I move amendment 6. After the word "tenement" in line 8 to insert the words "or becomes tenant thereof." This is an amendment which is intended to clarify the section, and I think it ought to be accepted by the Minister. The section is this:
Where a person retains possession of a tenement by virtue of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Acts, 1923 to 1930, the tenancy arising by virtue of those Acts on such retention shall, for the purpose of this Act (whether such retention began before or after the passing of this Act), be deemed to be a continuation of the tenancy on the termination of which such retention began.
My amendment is to meet a case which arose in practice under existing legislation where a person died leaving a widow. In that case, the practice is to give a new tenancy to the widow. According to the practice in some courts the widow would not seem to comply with the verbal meaning of this section: "Where a person retains possession of a tenement by virtue of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Acts." A widow in the case that I have put to the House would not retain possession and it has been suggested to me by some gentlemen who are in large practice in connection with these Town Tenants Acts and the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Acts that we should put after the word "tenement" in line 8 the words "or becomes tenant thereof," so as to leave no doubt that the widow in the case I have mentioned would be a person coming within Section 6. Judges in some of the courts in Dublin certainly have decided that she gets a new tenancy and is entitled to a new tenancy. In order to have a uniform practice, I think it would be better to put in these few words into Section 6—"Where a person retains"—that would be the husband would retain—"or becomes"—that would include the wife. I suggest to the Minister that he ought to accept the amendment.
I do not quite follow Senator Comyn, because if a new tenancy is created in a widow or anybody else then they are not holding on under the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Act at all. I will consider the matter more fully.
I wonder are there reports of these cases? I would like to consider it too.
Yes.
Amendment postponed until Report Stage.
Question proposed: "That Section 6 stand."
On Section 6 there is a matter which deals with the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act. Since this Bill was circulated we received a copy of the Expiring Laws Act, in which we see that the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act is to be continued for another year. I am not sure whether the words "nineteen thirty-one" will not have to go into this Act as a necessary corollary. This is a detail that perhaps the Minister might consider. I want to ask the Minister whether he would consider introducing into this Act the repeal of one section in the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, with reference solely to business premises. I can see a case for continuing, in view of the rather peculiar financial circumstances of the present time, for another year, in spite of this Act, the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, but I can see no case for continuing it in the case of purely business premises which are not used for residential purposes. As I understand it, the position will be that a tenant who has held for seven years business premises as a weekly tenant now comes under this Act and is entitled to obtain a full tenancy although he was originally a weekly tenant. I hold that it is reasonable in the case of purely business premises that he should pay an economic rent in view of the fact that he is now protected under this Act, and if the landlord wishes to raise the matter the tenant who is going to obtain all the privileges of this Act stays on under the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, and in the case of short-term tenancies it will be impossible to get any increase of rent although, when the operation of this Act came into force, the court would, in the event of its being impossible to get agreement, fix what was regarded as a fair rent. I would be glad if the Minister would undertake to look into the matter to see if there is a case for continuing the Rent Restriction Act in regard to business premises once this Act becomes law.
Senator Douglas must have some individual case in his mind, because he could not possibly evolve that speech out of his inner consciousness. If he has a case in his mind he ought to tell us all the facts of the case. What weekly tenant does he want to get an increase of rent from in the next twelve months? If you knew the particular case you would be able to judge it, but I would suggest to this House that it is very bad to legislate for a particular case. I certainly would be against any proposal such as Senator Douglas has suggested.
The Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act and this Act are not connected. The Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act is an Act which we look on as a temporary measure which must expire at some time. But this is meant to be an Act which permanently settles the relations between landlord and tenant, and you should look at this question entirely from that point of view. Under this, I do not think it would be at all appropriate to take in an amendment to the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act.
Although the Minister says they are separate in their action, they are interwoven, and as certain of the benefits that tenants were receiving under this temporary measure are now assured permanently in this Bill, I do hope he will shortly interpret the word "temporary" in its ordinary dictionary sense and repeal the Act, because, temporary as it is, it has been going on now for about ten years, and it is an Act which has great limitation on the operation of houses proper, and is most unjust as everybody knows in the advantages it gives to occupiers in the matter of subletting.
I would like to ask the Minister further—I may be wrong in my argument because it depends entirely on my interpretation of the position—to assume a case where the tenancy is held either weekly or yearly and has fixed the rent, which has been continued since 1923 or earlier, under the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act. Assume a case where a landlord was quite willing to grant a lease on a much longer term provided he got the rent which was agreed. Am I correct in stating the case that on the continuation of this Act the landlord can simply leave the tenant as he stands without a new lease which is intended here—that it will be impossible to operate this Act and get an increase of rent? Under this Act if a tenancy ends at an early date the tenant is entitled to 33 years or something of this kind as a tenancy. If he claims that, he will get it of right at a rent to be fixed by the court as a fair rent. I take it that if the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act continues, the court cannot fix a higher rate than the present rate.
Oh, no. If you go into any case that comes into court, the court will fix a fair rent as defined in this Bill.
Is there any prospect of a repeal of that Act?
As Senators are aware, it is being continued for this year by the Expiring Laws (Continuation) Act. I cannot give any definite statement to the Senator as to what period must elapse before the necessity for the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act passes away.
Section 6 put and agreed to.
Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.
I move amendment 7:—
To add at the end of the section the words "save that where an application has been made for compensation under that Act and not finally adjudicated upon the said application shall be deemed to have been made under this Act, and any procedure or amendments necessary to be made for compliance with this Act and the rules thereunder shall be deemed to have been complied with or made."
This is another amendment which has been suggested to me by legal men. If you look at Section 9 you will see that it proposes that the Town Tenants (Ireland) Act be repealed. My amendment is to add at the end of that section after the word "repealed""save that where an application has been made for compensation under that Act"—that is the Town Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1906—"and not finally adjudicated upon the said application shall be deemed to have been made under this Act and any procedure or amendments necessary to be made for compliance with this Act and the rules thereunder shall be deemed to have been complied with or made." You will have understood from the reading of that that the object is to save people the expenses of a double litigation. If an applicant has a case under the Town Tenants Act, and it has proceeded almost as far as trial or, perhaps, as far as trial, and the Act is now to be repealed, these proceedings will all be nugatory and the costs incurred by him will have been lost. If you accept this amendment all the proceedings already taken in relation to his claim under the Town Tenants Act of 1906 will be applicable to proceedings under this Act mutatis mutandis. The object is to save expense to litigants. I do submit to the House that it would be an improvement in the Act and a very salutary amendment.
I think Senator Comyn has completely overlooked the Interpretation Act of 1923, because in Section 13, sub-section (2), of the Interpretation Act of 1923 all proceedings under the Town Tenants Act will be carried on. If proceedings have begun they will not become nugatory or cease with the repeal of the Act. The Interpretation Act says that they are still to be carried on. So the amendment is quite unnecessary.
That matter has also been considered, but how is this to be one of the Town Tenants Acts seeing that you will have to change the title? It is a Landlord and Tenant Act. My friend Senator Linehan said that it was a curious thing to call it a Town Tenants Act when it refers to houses in the country on half an acre of land. Will this be considered as one with the Town Tenants Act?
No. The Town Tenants Act is repealed.
This Bill, when it becomes an Act, will be a Town Tenants Act. At least, when it was originally introduced it was intended to be a Town Tenants Act. Now, as a result of difficulties, the Minister had to find some words which would include a single house at cross-roads which could not be called a village or hamlet and he has to call his new Act a Landlord and Tenant Act. What I put to the House is this: If proceedings which had already been taken and not finally concluded under the Town Tenants Act of 1906 are to go on in respect of rights under this Bill the applicant should not be put to the expense of starting his proceedings de novo. The Minister may think that it is already covered by the Interpretation Act. There are people who have nearly as long experience as the Minister and whose practice is concerned mainly with this matter of town tenants, who think it is not covered. If the Minister thinks he has already provided for it I certainly will not press it.
The Interpretation Act, I think, is sufficient.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 9 and 10 agreed to.
SECTION 11.
(1) The amount of compensation for improvements in any particular case shall (subject to the provisions of this section) be the capitalised value of such addition to the letting value of the tenement at the termination of the tenancy as the court shall determine to be attributable to the improvement which is the subject of such compensation.
(2) Where the compensation for an improvement is payable to a tenant by his landlord and the court is satisfied that such tenant and (where applicable) his predecessors in title or any of them has or have received from the landlord benefits by way of reduction of rent or otherwise in consideration, expressly or impliedly, of such improvement being or having been made, the court shall deduct from the compensation for such improvement as ascertained under the foregoing sub-section of this section such sum as the court shall think proper in respect of such benefits.
The following amendment stood in the name of Senator Brown:—
Section 11, sub-section (1). After the word "tenancy" in line 54 to insert the words "as may be agreed upon between the tenant and his landlord or in default of such agreement."
I think this is an amendment which the Minister wishes to consider, and I am quite willing that it should go to the Report Stage.
Amendment postponed.
I move amendment 9:—
Section 11, sub-section (2). To delete all after the word "section" in line 64 down to the end of the sub-section and to substitute therefor the words "a sum equal to the amount of the money payment (if any) passing directly from such landlord to such tenant or in the case of reduction of the rent or other benefits a sum equal to the capitalised value (as herein defined) of the same in the case of the reversion exceeding fifteen years, and in the case of the reversion not exceeding fifteen years a sum equal to the annual value of such benefits (which in the case of a reduction of rent would be the net amount of such reduction and in the case of other benefits a sum to be ascertained by the court) multiplied by the number of years unexpired of such said reversion.
This is an amendment which gives a definite direction to the court as to the amount to allow in the case of a claim for compensation. In the section at present it is left to the discretion of the court. It would be more just and equitable to take the sum actually paid by the landlord to the tenant as a basis or capitalise any reduction of rent. I do not think it will make very much difference, but I think this is better than the wording of the section as it stands at present.
I think it would be fairer both to the landlord and tenant that the court should have full discretion to do what is just between them, because a great number of considerations would arise and this rather rule of thumb might not work out equitably. There are a whole lot of things that you have to take into consideration. The value of money may be altered and various other things of that kind over a considerable number of years.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14 agreed to.
SECTION 15.
I move amendment 10: Section 15, sub-section (2). To delete in line 43 the word "five" and to substitute therefor the word "three." The sub-section as it stands is this:
(2) Where a tenant has served an improvement notice on his landlord and either such landlord or a superior landlord has within two months after such service served on such tenant an improvement objection in respect of such improvement notice, 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 than five years the said improvement objection shall be final and it shall not be lawful for such tenant to make the improvement which is the subject of such improvement objection.
My amendment is to strike out the word "five" in line 43 and to substitute therefor the word "three." That is to give the tenant who has been three years in the house the rights which the Minister proposes to give him when he is five years in the house. I think that my amendment would be more in conformity with the other provisions of the Bill, because I know in Section 18 of the Bill which gives the right to a new tenancy you have this: "(1) On the termination within the meaning of this section of a tenancy in a tenement this Part of the Act shall apply to such tenement if such tenement complies with any one of the following conditions: (a) such tenement was, during the whole of the three years next preceding the termination of such tenancy, bona fide used by the tenant for the time being thereof wholly or partly for the purpose of carrying on a business...”
The underlying principle in that clause which I have read is that a certain amount of goodwill can be acquired in three years. If a certain amount of goodwill can be acquired in three years, as is admitted in the drafting of Section 18, why should not the same rule apply in relation to the section which you are now considering? Why not have three years instead of five on the assumption that a goodwill can be acquired in three years?
The two sections really have nothing to do with each other. The object of this section is if the tenant is only going to be there a very short time it is not fair that he should set about making improvements or alterations in the house which the landlord does not wish to have carried out. The tenant ought to have really some stake so to speak in the house before he should start carrying out alterations and I would suggest to the House that unless he is going to have it for at least five years he should not be allowed to make alterations and that five years is a reasonable time.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 15 agreed to.
SECTION 16.
I move amendment 11:—
Section 16, sub-section (5). To add at the end of the sub-section the words, "Provided that in the case of any such improvement made after the passing of this Act a tenant within two months of the receipt of such order shall have served on his landlord a notice that he has been required to carry out such improvement in pursuance of such order."
Section 16 is the section which imposes certain restrictions on the right of a tenant to get compensation from his landlord for improvements but it very properly makes an exception in the case of improvements which a tenant has been ordered to make by the sanitary authority. The object of the amendment is where he is served with notice of that kind and has to spend money which the landlord may have to pay or will have to make good at the end of the tenancy the landlord should have notice within two months of the service on him by the sanitary authority of what kind of improvement is going to take place, so that he himself may be able to provide means of paying it at a future time. It will not impose any hardship on the tenant. All he has to do is to give notice within two months of his being served with an order of that kind.
If he does not give notice or does not know the Act of Parliament sufficiently to give notice or if he does not consult a solicitor on the question then he loses. In every implication in every one of the sections this Bill is a Bill in favour of landlords. As it stands, in this respect at all events, so far as improvements as result of notice from local authorities are concerned it seems to be fair enough. The meaning of the amendment proposed by Senator Brown and the result of it will be that in nine cases out of ten an ignorant tenant would never serve two months' notice and he would never get that compensation from the landlord.
I think the Senator is trifling with the intelligence of the House when he declares that this Bill is in favour of the landlords. Why, its effect will be to tear up contracts to the disadvantage of landlords.
Cathaoirleach
We must not have a debate of that nature at this stage.
There will be certain clauses brought in later, the object of which will be to mitigate the hardships that will be placed by this Bill upon landlords.
Cathaoirleach
That matter should more properly have been brought up on the Second Stage.
This appears to me to be a reasonable amendment in principle, but I would like the Parliamentary draftsman to go through it and see how it works in with the rest of the Bill. I will undertake to get an amendment on these lines brought forward on the Report Stage. I am accepting the principle of this amendment.
I am quite agreeable to withdraw the amendment on the undertaking of the Minister to consider another amendment of a similar nature.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 16 agreed to.
SECTION 17.
(4) A landlord to whom an application for an improvement certificate is made under this section may demand, as a condition of the giving of such certificate, 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.
I beg to move amendment 12 which, I think, is self-explanatory:—
Before sub-section (4) to insert two new sub-sections as follow:—
"(4) Where the tenant of a tenement executes work on such tenement in pursuance of an order of a sanitary authority under the Public Health Acts, 1878 to 1930, or the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Acts, 1890 to 1921, and such work is an improvement within the meaning of this Act, and such tenant has not served an improvement notice in respect of such improvement, such tenant shall not be entitled to an improvement certificate under the foregoing provisions of this section in respect of such improvement, but shall be entitled to obtain from such sanitary authority, within six months after the due completion of such work in accordance with such order, a certificate (in this Act referred to as a sanitary improvement certificate) in writing in the prescribed form certifying that such work was executed in pursuance of and completed in accordance with an order of such sanitary authority.
(5) A sanitary improvement certificate shall, as against the landlord of the tenement to which it relates, be prima facie evidence of the matters which such certificate purports to certify.”
This amendment provides that where a tenant executes an improvement in pursuance of the order of a sanitary authority, he will be entitled to obtain from the sanitary authority a certificate to the effect that the improvement was executed in pursuance of and in accordance with an order by the sanitary authority. This brings the Bill into harmony. In the other case he gets an improvement certificate from the landlord. When he does the work at the instigation of the sanitary authority he ought to have a similar certificate, and that will be made prima facie evidence against the landlord in any subsequent legal proceedings, and it will probably stop a great deal of legal proceedings.
Amendment agreed to.
The following consequential amendments were also agreed to:—
Section 17, sub-section (4). After the word "landlord" in line 30 to insert the words "or sanitary authority." (Senator Milroy).
Section 17, sub-section (4). After the word "certificate" in line 31 to insert the words "or sanitary improvement certificate (as the case may be)." (Senator Milroy.)
Section 17, sub-section (4). After the word "him" in line 32 to insert the words "or them." (Senator Milroy.)
Section 17, sub-section (4). After the word "him" in line 34 to insert the words "or them." (Senator Milroy).
Section 17, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 18.
(1) 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:—
(a) such tenement was, during the whole of the three years next preceding the termination of such tenancy,bona fide used by the tenant for the time being thereof wholly or partly for the purpose of carrying on a business and, immediately before such termination, either was held by the tenant thereof under a tenancy from year to year or under a lease or other contract of tenancy for a term of not less than one year or a lease for a life or lives or had been for not less than seven years continuously in the occupation of the person who was the tenant thereof immediately before such termination or of his predecessors in title, or
(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, or
(c) at the termination of such tenancy the reversion of the landlord in the tenement does not exceed three years and such tenement was, during the whole of the period of fifteen years next preceding such termination continuously in the occupation of the person who was the tenant thereof immediately before such termination or of his predecessors in title. or
(d) improvements have been made on such tenement and the tenant would, if this Part of this Act did not apply to such tenement, be entitled to compensation for improvements in respect of such improvements, and not less than one-half of the letting value of such tenement at such termination is attributable to such improvements.
I beg to move amendment 17:—
Sub-section (1). To delete in line 42 the word "three" and to substitute therefor the word "five."
This section is an eloquent denial of the statement made by Senator Comyn that this Bill is in favour of the landlords. It gives anybody who carries on a business the right to a new tenancy after being three years at that business. Anybody who knows the country knows perfectly well what most of these businesses are. I can picture in my neighbourhood dozens and dozens of cottages, small houses in towns, which have been converted at a cost of a few shillings into what are called business houses. There is nothing in the way of elaborate structural alterations. These places are stocked with Quaker Oats, candles and packets of tea at a cost, perhaps, of about £50. In many cases they are stocked, I dare say, because the occupants desire to live reasonably by purchasing commodities at wholesale prices. If you examine the turnover of those small places you will find it is almost negligible. In a sense they are not business premises at all. Of course it would be very difficult, with the array of talent that the Bar can produce against you, to prove that it is not a bona fide business. I think three years is too short a period to stabilise these places and permit the rights that are suggested in the section. Five years should be the very shortest period permissible for a business to claim this privileged position. Anybody in a bona fide business doing trade and who has acquired goodwill should certainly be there for at least five years. I suggest that this amendment is perfectly reasonable and is in accordance with the spirit of the measure.
Senator Sir John Keane in this matter of town tenants is fighting a rearguard action and certainly he is fighting at every step. This sub-section gives no right to a new tenancy unless there is a business carried on. Senator Sir John Keane and people like him may think that others cannot carry on business unless they have great stocks of goods and provisions. There are hundreds of people who live very well and decently and who never have more than £50 worth of goods in the little shanty or shop at the same time, whether it is Quaker Oats, candles or matches. A good many people, and they are the most deserving people, have rarely more than £50 worth of stock and, even if they did get their own food and requirements at wholesale prices, is not that an additional advantage to them, and should not the Senator be delighted that they do get even that small advantage?
The period of three years applies only in the case where the landlord has given a tenancy from year to year or a lease for some longer term. If the premises are held under a lease, the lease will contain a clause against the carrying on of business if the landlord does not wish business to be carried on. If it is a year to year tenancy he must know that a business has been or will be carried on. Therefore the landlord is not taken by surprise. I really am taken by surprise on this occasion by the action of Senator Sir John Keane. One would imagine from the general tone of his speeches in this House from time to time that he would be a bigger man than to endeavour to make this difference between three and five years in the case of, say, a woman with a huckster's shop in the midlands or the West of Ireland. One would imagine that this matter is too small for the Senator, and I ask the Seanad not to accept the amendment for the sake of Senator Sir John Keane's own reputation.
I think there seems to be a mistake in considering that all businesses in this country are of the trifling nature that Senator Sir John Keane mentions. There may be a few small shops in country towns that do very little business, but there are also very large shops doing very fine business. The question we must consider is the question of what is the average shop that is doing a bona fide business. It seems to me, and I ask the Seanad to take the same outlook, that at the end of a period of three years a person may have built up a bona fide business and acquired goodwill in the premises. I think one can easily do that in three years. An active, go-ahead man will have laid the foundation of his business in three years. I submit it is a fair period of time.
Amendment declared lost.
I beg to move amendment 18:—
Section 18, sub-section (1). To delete in line 50 the word "seven" and to substitute therefor the word "three."
This is an amendment with a contrary tendency to that indicated in the last amendment. The Minister agrees that if an energetic man has been in possession of a house and is carrying on a business he may at the end of three years have acquired a goodwill in the premises. I was very glad to hear the Minister say that, and for that reason the Seanad refused to accept Senator Sir John Keane's amendment to change the period from three to five years. If Senators read to the end of the sub-section they will see that the three years' term applies only in the case of the holder under a tenancy from year to year or a lease. In regard to the smaller tenant the clause says "or had been for not less than seven years continuously in the occupation of the person who was the tenant thereof immediately before such termination or of his predecessors in title." A three years' term is held to be sufficient to give goodwill and the right to a new tenancy in the case where a tenancy is from year to year or is a tenancy of a higher character. Where it is less than a tenancy from year to year you are asked to legislate that it is necessary to be in the house for seven years before you get a goodwill.
I think it is in the experience of every Senator that vigorous and active men such as the Minister has referred to can acquire a goodwill and an interest in premises after three years. Vigorous and active men in the City of Dublin, at least, are as likely to be in a house under a weekly tenancy as under a yearly tenancy. In my own experience I have come across numerous cases where the tenancy is weekly and I know hundreds of people in Dublin City who have been for twenty years continuously in houses held under a weekly tenancy. If a man has been for three years in possession of a house held under a weekly tenancy, and if he has in his shop the £50 worth of stock referred to by Senator Sir John Keane, why not give him the same benefit as the man with the tenancy from year to year? Why require that he should be seven years in occupation before you can give him the right to a new tenancy? Is it not much better to have the term of three years applying in the case of all tenants and give a new tenancy after a person has carried on business for three years in a house? Why not give him the right to a new tenancy whether he is a weekly, a monthly, a yearly tenant, or a tenant under lease?
I can see no reason whatever for requiring a more extended time in the case of a person who has only a weekly tenancy than in the case of a person with a yearly tenancy. People of the same class occupy these houses. The person with the weekly tenancy can start and continue the business just as well and as efficiently. It is in the experience of all Senators that a great number of business houses in Dublin are held under weekly tenancies. I think tenants of that character ought to get the same privileges as yearly tenants in Dublin or elsewhere.
I hope the House will realise that there should be an element of give and take in this matter. Senator Comyn wants everything, but apparently he will not allow me to have anything. That is not equitable. After all, the landlords under this measure will suffer a considerable amount of hardship. Many of them will have their contracts torn up and for the most part they will get little back. The Senator will give them nothing back. I think where the tenancy is only a weekly tenancy, surely the man holding that weekly tenancy must realise what it involves? I think he should be established at least seven years with his matches and his candles before he can be said to acquire a goodwill and a right to renew. If Senators approach this matter in a spirit of fair play they will let the section stand.
There is a big difference between a tenancy from year to year and a monthly or a weekly tenancy. With the year to year tenancy you know you are going to be there for a definite time. It will take at least six months before you can be put out. The person with the weekly or monthly tenancy will not expend the same amount of energy in building up a business when he knows he may be turned out next month. This period of seven years is the period which the Town Tenants Commission recommended as being the correct period in the case of tenancies less than a year-to-year tenancy. Nothing I have heard from Senator Comyn makes me consider that the more carefully thought out report of the Commission is in any way inaccurate. I ask the House to reject the amendment.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 10; Nil, 23.
Tá
- Caitlín Bean Uí Chléirigh.
- Michael Comyn, K.C.
- Joseph Connolly.
- William Cummins.
- Thomas Farren.
- Thomas Johnson.
- Seán E. MacEllin.
- Colonel Moore.
- John T. O'Farrell.
- Séumas Robinson.
Níl
- Samuel L. Brown, K.C.
- Miss Kathleen Browne.
- Mrs. Costello.
- John C. Counihan.
- George Crosbie.
- The Countess of Desart.
- Sir John Purser Griffith.
- Rt. Hon. Andrew Jameson.
- Sir John Keane.
- Cornelius Kennedy,
- The McGillycuddy of the Reeks.
- John MacLoughlin.
- Seán Milroy.
- Sir Walter Nugent.
- Joseph O'Connor.
- M. F. O'Hanlon.
- L. O'Neill.
- Bernard O'Rourke.
- Dr. William O'Sullivan.
- Siobhán Bean an Phaoraigh.
- Michael Staines.
- Thomas Toal.
- Richard Wilson.
Tellers:—Tá: Senators Comyn and MacEllin; Níl: Senators Milroy and O'Hanlon.
Amendment declared lost.
I beg to move amendment 19:—
Section 18, sub-section (1). To delete in line 53 the words "or of his predecessors in title."
I was rather afraid that these amendments of Senator Comyn and mine would be used, as elements on each side of the equation would be used, to cancel one another, and therefore nothing would happen. I do, however, think that there is some solid argument behind this amendment which suggests the deletion of the words "or of his predecessors in title." In the case of a weekly tenant who acquires after seven years the right to a new tenancy and there is business carried on there, surely it is equitable and just that those premises should be, during all the period, in the possession of the person who has built up the business, and they should not be merely premises which have been acquired during that term by purchase or assignment? I think it is only fair that the benefit should operate in favour of the party who has built up the business.
Senator Sir John Keane has been commendably brief, and I will try to follow his example. In the lower orders of society you have, I am sure, often seen a person paying a small consideration for a pitch—say, half-a-crown. One little boy may sometimes pay another little boy a small consideration for a pitch on which to sell papers or commodities of that kind. Of course, a gentleman may pay another gentleman £20,000 for a corner house, but still one is as much a predecessor in title as the other. The little boy is as much the predecessor in title to the other little boy as one gentleman is to the other gentleman. A weekly tenant building up a business can sell that business, and often does sell it in the City of Dublin for a considerable sum. It is only fair that the weekly tenant should have that right as well as the yearly tenant or the leaseholder. For that reason I think that these amendments of Senator Sir John Keane are altogether too small for him to sponsor.
The only thing that is small is the tenure. It is so small that it should constitute no value. I suggest that the House, in considering this matter, ought to have regard to what the tenant has to sell. He has only got a weekly tenancy, and surely it is not equitable that he should acquire vested rights in property of that character?
The minimum period here is seven years. That does not mean that that is the maximum period. If a business has been carried on for ten, fifteen or twenty years in a house by a father, then on his death the son or the daughter who has helped him and succeeds to the business, should, I think, stand in the same position as the father, the predecessor in title. It does not necessarily mean—in few instances would it be so—the successor by purchase. In most instances it would be by descent, by a will or by something of that kind, that the premises would pass from one tenant to another. These words are taken from the Report of the Town Tenants Commission, and I ask the House to stand by the Commission in this respect.
I understood the Minister to speak of a case where business had been carried on in the premises for seven years. In reading over the section I cannot find anything in it to say that it is compulsory that business should be carried on in the premises for seven years.
The business must be carried on for three years, but the occupation must be for seven years.
So that Senator Sir John Keane is right in saying that the whole title to have the premises treated as business premises depends upon a business occupation for three years?
Would the Minister consider moving on the Report Stage an amendment which would limit this right to those who came by the premises by inheritance or by a will? A good deal of harm may be done in a case of a weekly tenancy, where the premises have been purchased for some nominal sum. I think that in such, a case it would be inequitable that the person who had made the purchase for some nominal consideration should get the rights which this section gives.
Supposing that a man has a child who is unable to carry on the business, is he to be precluded from selling the business and thereby giving a little money to the child?
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment 20: Section 18, sub-section (1), to delete in line 55 the word "forty" and substitute therefor the word "twenty." I suppose paragraph (b) of the section has given rise to more contention than any other paragraph, section or sub-section in the Bill. It does seem to most people that the period of forty years fixed in the Bill is unreasonably long. The section gives the right to a new tenancy on certain conditions. It shall be on terms either agreed to between the landlord and the tenant or in the absence of such agreement on terms to be fixed by the court. In this case we are not dealing with business premises, and there is no question of business goodwill. There is the question of the residence of a person or of his family or predecessors in title, over a certain number of years, after which he will be entitled to a new tenancy on terms to be fixed by the court. The Bill prescribes that the number of years shall be forty. A person, say, goes into a house on his marriage at twenty-five. At sixty-five he may be able to demand to be allowed to remain in the house on terms to be fixed by the court, but for anything less than forty years there will be no right to a new tenancy.
I think the period should be very much less. In putting down the period of twenty years I have been as moderate as I could to meet any case that has been made on behalf of the Bill as presented. I submit that after twenty years' residence persons have become habituated to a house. They have become part of the house, or as as one may say the house has become part of them. Their personality has become impressed upon it. After twenty years' residence all their associations are connected with that house. If a tenant has fulfilled all his obligations, is prepared to carry on and take the judgment of the court as to what the rental should be, I submit that he ought to have the right to retain his occupation of the house. The period of twenty years is not, I submit, unreasonable. Anything higher than twenty years would be unreasonable if we are going to do anything at all under the Bill. To put in a provision for forty years practically makes the Bill useless to people who are not in business. A house tenant who has occupied a house and fulfilled all his obligations over a period of twenty years ought, I submit, to have the rights granted by the Bill for a new tenancy on terms that may be fixed by the court.
Senator Johnson has drawn a frightful picture of a person who has been in a house for twenty years, but does he realise that under the section a person may be there only five years and yet obtain the benefits of the section? The Senator's proposition is that if a person has been in continuous residence for twenty years he ought to have the right to a new tenancy. The fact is that there has got to be an unbroken title for forty years, that the last occupier may be there only for the last three or four years and yet gets the benefit of the section. I think the Senator was inclined to draw a wrong impression of the meaning of the section. It has to be remembered that this class of property is sold on its value as a wasting asset. If a person comes in in the last few years of the tenancy and buys the property for a very much reduced sum, surely it is only right that the property should be continuously in unbroken occupation, not of the one person, but that there should not be a break in the title for forty years before any right is acquired under the section? I think forty years is reasonable and I hope it will not be shortened.
I wonder where the Minister found his figure of forty years? There are not three per cent. of the dwelling houses in the City of Dublin held under the same continuous title for forty years.
Nonsense.
I cannot help hearing what Senator Brown has said. I always pay great attention to what the Senator says, but here he is contradicting me on a question of fact. I went to the trouble of getting some statistics on this, and it so happens that not five per cent.—I yield to Senator Brown in saying five per cent. instead of three—of the dwelling houses in the City of Dublin are held continuously under the same title for forty years. Where did the Minister find this figure of forty years? Was it the Commission he set up that found it? Because if it was I certainly would reject the opinion of that Commission. I do not like to have it stated too frequently in this House that we are to accept the opinions of other men on questions that we know thoroughly well—quite as well as they do. I do not like to have put before the House again and again the statement that the opinion of a Commission on a question of this kind is to be taken as final.
I do not believe that the houses erected at the present time will last forty years. Forty years, of course, is absurd. It is intended to hold out to occupiers of dwelling houses a promise which can never be fulfilled. I forget for the moment what is the classical phrase to use to express that idea. I think it is: "That keep the word of promise to our ear, and break it to our hope." Forty years is put in here. You might as well put in eighty years. I think the case that Senator Johnson has made for his amendment is extremely reasonable. If people have been in occupation of a house for twenty years, then they must have been good tenants or they would not have been there for that period. They would have been put out on an ejectment for nonpayment of rent. A good tenant is a tenant who pays his rent.
And does not burn the stairs.
If a man has been in a house for twenty years, then I think he has well qualified for a renewal. Senator Sir John Keane asks why should a man who has been only three years in a place have the advantage of the seventeen years' occupation of the man from whom he bought? The Senator is very fond of using an argument of that kind as applicable to the tenants of dwelling houses in the city. I wonder would he like to have the same argument applied to the owners of fee simple estates?
I do not apologise in the least for voicing the views of the landlord class. The tenants have had their views voiced too.
I am not surprised that the Senator should voice the views of the landlord class. I think he is now voicing the views of the advance guard; that he, as it were, is crying "Wolf, wolf!" for fear any further incursions would be made on the landlord class. There is no reality at all in some of the amendments he has brought forward. Why should not a person who buys the goodwill or interest of another who has been seventeen years' in occupation make use of that for the purpose of eking out the further three years and getting a right to a new tenancy? Senator Johnson's amendment proposes to reduce the period of forty years to twenty years. My amendment, which follows, is that it should be reduced to ten years.
Senator Comyn started off by saying that no attention should be paid to the Report of the Town Tenants Commission. He hates to have the report quoted. That was an impartial body that was set up. It heard witnesses from the landlords' side and from the tenants' side. On the evidence it came to the conclusion that such and such things were just as between landlord and tenant. I think that the report of such a Commission should be regarded as a document not to be lightly departed from. Of course this House and the Dáil are supreme. Nobody has ever suggested that the Oireachtas is bound by the report of any Commission, but the Oireachtas, I am sure, will always give the greatest attention to the findings of any Commission which has carefully investigated the facts it was appointed to inquire into. The Town Tenants Commission have come to the conclusion that, while for the ordinary dwelling house there is really no reason why a person who has been in possession of a house should have the equities there for all time merely by the fact that he has lived in the house over a period, have gone further and held that houses have got a sentimental value for persons. They have come to the conclusion that a person must have been there for a very long period indeed; that it is only this long period which gives the tenant an equity which he otherwise would not have to a renewal. I would ask the House to stand over the findings of the Town Tenants Commission. Senator Comyn suggests that the period should be ten years. Why not make it one year?
Or six months.
Senator Sir John Keane, to some extent the Minister, and particularly Senator Comyn, seem to have in mind in discussing this amendment the transfer of the tenancy. The case that I am making does not permit of a transfer, and so far as this particular case is concerned, the term "predecessor in title" does not affect me. Senator Sir John Keane's argument was in relation to his own amendment proposing to delete the words "predecessors in title." I do not believe that you can sell or even bequeath—certainly you cannot sell as a marketable asset—the sentimental value of a house. If the forty years is to remain in as recommended by the Town Tenants Commission, then I take it the possibility of transferring the tenancy from one person to another was in mind, and, therefore, the Commission recommended that long period. I want to make it possible to keep out the term "predecessors in title." The person that I am concerned with is the person who has been in occupation of a house for over twenty years. If a person has occupation of a house for that period, then he ought to have the right to continue. As far as I am personally concerned, I am prepared to leave out this term "predecessors in title" if we can get the twenty years' occupation. If you are going to have the forty years' period, perhaps there is a case for retaining the words "predecessors in title," but what I am seeking to achieve in this amendment is that the person who has been in occupation of a house for twenty years and who has brought up his family in it ought to have the right to retain possession under a new tenancy under this Act. The case for that is, I think, a complete one. I do not lay any stress at all upon the words "predecessors in title."
I think there is a good deal in what Senator Johnson says. If you are going to have regard to the equities of the case it would certainly be more reasonable that a person twenty years in occupation should have the right to a new tenancy than that a person who came in at the end of the lease and was in occupation for six months or so should have the right to a new tenancy. If there is going to be accommodation in regard to this, then I think it should be along the lines that Senator Johnson has suggested.
Before that is accepted I would like to remind the House that "predecessors in title" comprises more than the vendor. Take the case of a man who has lived in a house with his family. He dies, leaving a will or dies intestate. He would be the predecessor in title of his widow who continued to live in the house. "Predecessor in title" is not necessarily confined to the person who sells and "successor in title" is not necessarily confined to the person who buys. As Senator Sir John Keane and Senator Johnson have come to an agreement in principle, I suppose the House would not have any great objection to ratifying that agreement, provided the interests of the widow in the case I have mentioned are protected. Therefore, "predecessors in title" will have to be varied so as to include in the benefit this protection gives a widow or a child.
I am not going that far in my amendment.
Very well. Leave it at the widow.
I have already considered a case of this kind. This is not by any means the first time that a similar amendment has come up. This matter was very fully thrashed out in the Dáil. My view is that the period of forty years, which is the period that was recommended by the Commission, is the correct period. It is very hard, of course, to say where you would stop. The Commission say that it must be a very long continued possession. They say forty years, and I do not see any reason myself for departing from that.
Senators must be aware that under the Increase of Rent Act people have been enabled, since 1918, to continue in possession of houses in this country against the will of the landlord.
Of some houses only.
So that it has to be borne in mind, when you speak of a twenty years' period, that a tenant was protected by the Increase of Rent Act for more than twelve years. The landlord could not interfere with him during that period. I think that if you put in twenty years you are going to do an injustice under the Act.
It must be remembered that for several years back the Increase of Rent Act has not applied to houses over £25 a year valuation. At no time did that Act apply to all houses. Therefore, the case that Senator Wilson has made will not stand. I would ask the permission of the House to withdraw the amendment in its present form with the object of framing, if possible, for the next stage an amendment which will cover the class of case I have in mind where a man and his family or a man's widow have retained occupation of a house over a period of twenty years. I leave out the question of predecessors in title.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Cathaoirleach
The amendment is withdrawn on the understanding that Senator Johnson will bring in an amendment on the Report Stage to meet the case that he has dealt with.
Amendments 21, 22 and 23 not moved.
I move amendment 24:
Section 18, sub-section (1). To delete in line 5 the words "one-half" and to substitute therefor the words "one-third."
This is sub-section (d):
(d) improvements have been made on such tenement and the tenant would, if this Part of this Act did not apply to such tenement, be entitled to compensation for improvements in respect of such improvements and not less than one-half of the letting value of such tenement at such termination is attributable to such improvements.
I think half is too much to give and that there should be substituted for one-half one third. I make that submission to the House. Take a concrete case—a £40 house. If a man has expended £400 on the improvement of that house the interest on that would be about £20. That would be about half. £400 is a pretty large fine to pay for the right of renewal. I will leave it to the House for their consideration.
A half here is not by any means an arbitrary figure. If half the value of the house is due to the tenant's improvements the tenant really is as much owner as the landlord.
Amendment put, and declared lost.
Section 18 agreed to.
Progress ordered to be reported.
The Seanad went out of Committee.
Progress reported.
The Seanad adjourned at 7.5 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 19th November, 1931.