HC Deb 22 November 1920 vol 135 cc181-3

(2) Any such claim as is mentioned in this Section shall cease to be enforceable after the expiration of two months from the termination of the tenancy unless particulars thereof have been given by the landlord to the tenant or by the tenant to the landlord, as the case may be, before the expiration of that period.

(3) This Section shall not apply in the case of a tenancy which terminates before the commencement of this Act.

Amendment proposed: At the end of Sub-section (2), to insert the words Provided that where a tenant lawfully remains in occupation of part of a holding after the determination of the tenancy, pai -ticulars of a claim relating to that part of the holding may be given within two months from the termination of the occupation."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]


What is the meaning of the words "lawfully remains in occupation of part of a holding"? How can he remain lawfully in occupation after the determination of tenancy; or does it mean where he is allowed to have a rick on the farm until it is threshed?


Sub-section (2) of this Clause deals with the period within which the claim must be made. There may be two lettings in the occupation of the tenant, and under circumstances of that sort this proviso is inserted merely to operate where a tenant lawfully remains in occupation of part of a holding. That does not mean that where, by the licence of the landlord, a rick is left, but where in fact he is in occupation.


It is not a question of courtesy. Very often in the agreement it is laid down that after the termination of the tenancy the outgoing tenant is allowed to keep a rick.


It is where he remains in "occupation" of a portion of the land; not at all because he is given some small right to retain a rick or something of that kind and which is really a licence and no more.


If that is so, I do not understand it. If the tenant remains in occupation in that sense, and if the tenancy has been determined, he must either be a licensee or a trespasser.


We shall be quite satisfied if the hon. and learned Gentleman will give us a concrete case or a real reason for inserting these words. What we want to know is under what circumstances can a tenancy be determined and the tenant still remain in legal occupation of part of it.


My first words were a case where holdings were held under separate and different tenures. You might have a holding to which are a couple of acres which had been added. That is the first case which I have in mind. I will endeavour to allay my right hon. Friends' fears by telling them that these are words which are copied out of the Act of 1908 and have been in existence twelve years. If they will look at page 68 of the Act of 1908, Section 6, Sub-section (2), they will find these words: Provided that, where the claim relates to an improvement executed after the determination of the tenancy but while the tenant lawfully remains in occupation of part of the holding, the notice may be given at any time before the tenant quits that part.


Is not that repealed under this Bill?


I have not looked. May I deal with one point at a time? That is not relevant here. The right hon. Gentleman will see that these words are not intended to cover such a case. There may have been one or two fields which have been added to the particular holding held under an agreement, and he may be in occupation of that. They are not intended to deal with the case which he feared where under an agreement, some licence was allowed to the tenant. Inasmuch as they are the words already in the Act of 1908, I think the suspicions that are attached to them may now be removed.


Is not that rather something different. Sub-section (2) of Clause 6 says: Provided that where the claim relates to an improvement executed after the determination of the tenancy"— which is a different thing altogether.


The principle is precisely the same. It is that you are going to do justice to the tenant. It may be under the Act of 1908. What you are dealing with is a question of improvement. The modification relates to the proviso of a limited time, and therefore the proviso is equally right, whether or not the ground for compensation arises in one ground or another.

Lieut. -Colonel ROYDS

In some tenancy agreements in Cheshire it is provided that the farm shall be given up as to So-and-so in February, as to So-and-so in March, and as to So-and-so in April, and there is always some doubt as to the date at which the tenancy terminates. This, I think, is put in to meet such a case.

Amendment agreed to.