NEW CLAUSE.—(Yearly Value.) (Hansard, 14 March 1919)

§ Dr. WORSFOLD
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
I respectfully submit that without this Clause thewhole effect, practically, of the principal Act, the amending enactment, and this Act which is now under consideration, is to opena very large backdoor wide enough to drive the proverbial coach and horses through the whole of the enactment, and to destroy the object which I conceive to be the one which has actuated those who have drafted this Bill, because there is on the Statute Book at the present moment a very old Act of Parliament which has been revivified during the past few months, an Act of George II, which I should like to read, because my Clause is one which is intended at least to counteract its effect on the Statute we have under consideration. It is in Section I of the Landlords and Tenants Act, 1730. For securing to lessors and landowners their just rights find to prevent frauds frequently committed by tenants in case anytenant or tenants for any term of life, lives, or years, or other person or persons, who areor shall come into possession or any lands, tenements, or hereditaments by, from or under, or by collusion with such tenant or tenants, shall wilfully hold over any lands, tenements, or hereditaments after the determination of such term or terms, and after demand made and notice in writing given for delivering the possession thereof by his or their landlords or lessors, or the person or persons to whom the remainder or reversion of such lands, tenements, or hereditaments shall belong, his or their agent or agents thereunto lawfully authorised, then and in such case such person or persons so holding over shall, for and during the time he, she, and they shall so hold over or keep the person or persons in title out of possession of the said lands, tenements, and hereditaments as aforesaid, pay to theperson or persons so kept out of possession, their executors, administrators, or assigns, at the rate of double 1639 the yearly value of the land, tenements, and hereditaments so detained, for so long time as the same are detained, to be recovered in any of His Majesty's Courts of Record by action of debt (whereunto the defendant or defendants shall be obliged to give special bail (t)) against the recovering of which said penalty there shall be no relief in equity. A case has arisen so late as last Wednesday, when, in the Croydon County Court, a landlord unable to get possession of premises under the existing Acts brought an action under this old Act. The Clause was immediately connected with this matter, and the judge simply stated that he thought it was obsolete and that it did not apply under the special circumstances, and found for the defendant, but gave leave to appeal. It is quite obvious that this mischief can onlybe stopped by a Clause similar to that to which I am now speaking. I have taken the words of that Act, and in specific terms. If this Clause is accepted, as I hope it will be, it will nullify what is at the present time undoubtedly being used by landlords to obtain possession of houses or to mulct the tenant in double the yearly value if he will not go out. Therefore I would earnestly ask all who are concerned, in the interest of the tenant as well as the landlord, to consider if they cannot give a cordialacceptance to this Clause. There is one thing I would like to add to this Clause, and that is that at the end, as it now stands on the printed Paper, there should also be added, "provided that such tenant is so holding over in good faith." The purview of that Act is, of course, to counteract fraud which in the old days, apparently, was of common occurrence, if we are to believe the somewhat quaint language that is used. But of course it is desired to protect both the honest landlord and the honest tenant, and with that view I respectfully submit my Clause. Otherwise, there are reports of this Act being revived, and employed against tenants in several directions at the present moment, and I submit that without the Clause I have moved the result will be to nullify the whole good effect of what has been brought about. I should like to express my appreciation of the courtesy with which my remarks have been received in connection with this, my first contribution as a new Member towards legislation.

§ Sir G. HEWART
We have listened with great interest to the speech of my hon. Friend, but I hope he will not think it 1640 necessary to press this Clause, not that it does not make for good sense and good law, but that it is entirely superfluous. In the case of a tenant covered by this Act the landlord could not successfully say that he was holding over, after the determination of his term. He is ex hypothesi a tenant of a dwelling house to which the Act refers, and, that being so, the tenant can say, "I am not holding over after the determination of my term: I am holding under the provision of this Act, and the claim of the landlord in such circumstances to recover twice the rent could not have expected to succeed. I gather that some such case has already arisen in one ofthe County Courts, and if I follow the observations of my hon. Friend, the County Court judge made very short work of it. He gave judgment for the defendant and allowed the plaintiff to appeal. That, I imagine, would happen again in similar circumstances.

§ Dr. WORSFOLD
I quite appreciate the point raised so cogently by my right hon. Friend, but I would like to point out one important point, and that is that throughout the whole of this Bill what is referred to is the standard rent, whereas the Act under which the landlords are striving to enforce their remedy by a roundabout way is the yearly value. It has already been argued in more than one Court that there is a difference between the rent and the yearly value. From a report which I have received of a judgment by one of the learned County Court judges given at Croydon last Wednesday I find that he said, "I hold that the old Act, assuming it has not been repealed by implication, does not apply."Notice of appeal is understood to have been given. Having regard to the statement made by the Attorney-General, if the circumstances were such as to protect the tenant, surely there could be no harm in inserting this Clause in order to save him the possibility of being harassed. These small tenants do not want to bedragged to Court. The case I am dealing with is annual value, and my Clause would protect the good landlord as well as the good tenant. If my Clause were inserted I suggest that whatever may happen, even out of the tenant's action, the tenant is secure under the Act. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that the case is arguable as appears from several decisions which have been given by learned judges in the County Courts and elsewhere.

§ Mr. HOOD
May I make a short appeal to the Attorney-General to consider this point. We know that several actions have already been brought under this old Act.

§ Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS
Have they succeeded?

§ Mr. HOOD
I believe not. There is no doubt in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman that though these cases may be brought, that in all probability the County Court judges will decide the case on the lines he suggested. That may be so or may be not; but it does not prevent an action being brought and the tenants being put to the expense of defending them. I therefore hope that he will consider this matter from the point of view of the tenant.

§ Sir G. HEWART
Ihope it will not be necessary to prolong this discussion. What my hon. Friend is inviting me to do now is to insert in this Bill a Clause which I regard as superfluous in order to prevent people from bringing actions in which they cannot succeed. I cannot do that.