HC Deb 06 August 1883 vol 282 cc1648-50
MR. HEALY

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the fact that a considerable number of applications by tenants, under the Lease Breaking Clause of the Land Act, were dismissed by the Land Commission (though otherwise admittedly within the terms of the Act) on the ground that the landlord had bought the property since the date when the lease had been forced on the tenant, and was therefore a purchaser for valuable consideration without notice; whether, on a case of this kind being ultimately brought before the Court of Appeal in Ireland, that tribunal decided that the Land Commission were wrong in their construction of the Act, and that the fact in question was not a ground for dismissing the tenant's application; whether, owing to the fact that the lease breaking provision was only in force for six months, and that the decision of the Court of Appeal was made after the expiration of this period, all the tenants whose cases had been dismissed by the Land Commission on the ground referred to, lost the benefit of the Act; whether, if the facts stated are as alleged, a Return will be granted of the number of lease breaking applications dismissed on the ground stated, or withdrawn in consequence of the decision of the Land Commission; and, whether the Government propose taking any steps to enable tenants deprived of their legal rights, through the default of the Land Commission and the temporary duration of the Lease Breaking Clause, to renew their applications?

MR. TREVELYAN

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to answer this Question. It is the fact that the Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the Land Commissioners in this matter, and held that the plea of purchase for valuable consideration without notice was not a bar to the tenant's right to have the lease set aside; but, so far as the Commissioners are aware, the cases in which the question arose are few in number. The Commissioners are unable to give a Return of the cases dismissed or withdrawn on this ground. It is not conceived that the tenants in these cases have necessarily lost the benefit of the Act. Their applications to the Commission were made within the proper time; and, presumably, leave to appeal will be given if asked for. At any rate, no reason is shown for any interference by Government.

In reply to a further Question,

M. TREVELYAN

said, the tenant would still have the right of appeal if given by the Commissioners.