§ Where a tenant of any such dwelling-house, as by reason of its rateable value comes within the provisions of this Act, has since the twenty-fourth day of December, nineteen hundred and eighteen, received notice that the dwelling-house he occupies has been sold or otherwise disposed or and/or that he is required to give up possession such tenant shall have the option of appeal to the County Court as against any disturbance of his occupation for the said period of this Act, and the Court, on consideration of all the circumstances of the case, including the alternative accommodation available for the tenant, may refuse to make any order for the disturbance of his occupation.—[Mr. Kennedy Jones.]
§ Brought up, and read the first time.
Mr. KENNEDY JONESbeg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
It was put on the Paper at a time when the date of this Bill was 4th March, and my Clause was intended to cover the cases of people who since the last quarter had received notice to buy or quit, or notice that therent was going to be largely increased. I think this Clause is now unnecessary, because we have amended the date of the Act. I shall be glad to hear if the Attorney-General agrees in that view.
§ Sir G. HEWARTI entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the Clause is unnecessary.
§ Sir J. BUTCHERBefore it is withdrawn may I ask the Attorney-General whether the tenant is not protected by the Clause of the existing Act? I take it that he would be, as I read the Section of the original Act, which is Section 3 of Clause 1, so long as an order of ejectment has not actually been carried out. I take it that although the notice may have been given before 24th December, the tenant will be protected under the Act.
§ Sir G. HEWARTYes; I think that will be so.
§ Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
1638§ Sir D. MACLEANWhen the Committee stage is over, we come to the Report stage. Can you tell us whether the Government Amendments are obtainable at the Vote Office?
§ Sir G. HEWARTYes, they are.