HC Deb 01 July 1920 vol 131 cc881-2

(1)A tenant who by virtue of the provisions of this Act retains possession of any dwelling-house to which this Act applies shall, so long as he retains possession, observe and be entitled to the benefit of all the terms and conditions of the original contract of tenancy, so far as the same are consistent with the provisions of this Act, and shall be entitled to give up possession of the dwelling-house only on giving such notice as would have been required under the original contract of tenancy.

(2) Any tenant retaining possession as aforesaid shall not as a condition of giving up possession ask or receive the payment of any sum, or the giving of any other consideration, by any person other than the landlord, and any person acting in contravention of this provision shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, and the court by which he was convicted may order any such payment or the value of any such consideration to be paid to the person by whom the same was made or given, but any such order shall be in lieu of any other method of recovery prescribed by this Act.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (1), after the word "tenancy" ["under the original contract of tenancy"], insert the words "or if no notice would have been so required on giving not less than three months' notice."

Agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

At end of Sub-section (2), insert a new Sub-section:— (3) Where the interest of a tenant of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies is determined, either as the result of an order or judgment for possession or ejectment or for any other reason, any sub-tenant to whom the premises or any part thereof have been lawfully sub-let shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be deemed to become the tenant of the landlord on the same terms as he would have held from the tenant if the tenancy had continued.

Read a Second time.

Dr. ADDISON

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is to protect a sub-tenant. There was some objection to the form of words originally used, and I promised to put it into proper form in another place. It will be seen that this puts the sub-tenant in the place of the principal tenant, and therefore he is protected in the same way as the principal tenant.