HC Deb 11 November 1927 vol 210 cc588-92
Sir W. PERRING

I beg to move, in page 21, line 39, to leave out the words "for a year or for any longer period."

My purpose here is to bring within the scope of the Bill quite a large number of tenants who in many parts of the country hold tenancies for a period less than one year. I am not acquainted with them myself very much in London, but I am told that in many parts of the country that is the case, and we feel that, where they have a case and can make out before the tribunal a claim which comes within the compass of the Bill, they should have that opportunity. I hope the Government, although I did not secure their goodwill on the last Amendment I moved, will realise that I am submitting in this case something that commends itself to them and will give it their approval and allow it to be embodied in the Bill.

Mr. WOMERSLEY

I beg to second the Amendment.

This concession is going to be of considerable benefit to a large number of smaller tenants. In any case, whatever the terms of the tenancy may be, the tenant or his predecessor must have been five years in occupation before he can claim anything whatever. Whether a man holds a quarterly or a yearly agreement, he still has to qualify by five years' occupancy of the premises. A man with a tenancy of less than 12 months is as much entitled to benefit as anyone else. In my constituency the railway company owns a vast estate upon which offices and shops are built, and three months is the utmost extent of the tenancy. People have spent £40,000 and more on building on a three months' tenancy. It may be said they have done it with their eyes open, but they did it because they could not get a tenancy of any other sort. I do not want to see that type of man debarred from the benefits of the Bill. I take it the Bill was intended to benefit tenants as a whole. By this Amendment you will include thousands of small traders, and you will only be giving them the same rights as are afforded to other tenants.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

I only want to say, in addition to what has been said by the Mover and Seconder, that you have to consider not merely tenancies which are at present under a year but to what extent this Bill in its present form will increase the number of those tenancies for the purpose of evading the provisions of the Bill. That is quite a serious point and I think it desirable that the Amendment should be adopted.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

At first I thought the Amendment rather a revolution, and it would have been with the Bill as it was brought into the House, but now we have inserted that no tenant, even a yearly tenant, can obtain compensation for improvements unless they were made three years before the termination of the tenancy. No tenant can claim compensation for goodwill unless he had five years' tenancy building up that goodwill. It seems to me to create no difference whatever whether a tenant sits there- as a tenant under an agreement for three or five years or whether he sits, as the Bill now declares, as a yearly tenant for three or five years. It does not seem to me to make the slightest difference whether he is a quarterly or a yearly tenant. By agreement the tenancy may run on for many years. After very full consideration, it seems to me the Amendment is a perfectly reasonable one and does not really extend the scope of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir P. PILDITCH

I beg to move, in page 21, line 42, at the end, to insert the words: The expression 'predecessors in title' means any person through whom the tenant has derived title, whether by assignment, by will, by intestacy, or by operation or law.

Mr. LOOKER

I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

I accept it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

Are we not going to have any word from the Government whether they accept or not?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

I said that I accept it. Perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman did not hear me. I think it an admirable Amendment.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

I do not know how the draftsmen and the Home Secretary can think this is an excellent Amendment. It seems to me to be absolutely platitudinous. No one can quarrel with the definition.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

If no one else can quarrel with it, I hope you will not.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

Surely "predecessor in title" must be an understood phrase hi law without putting it into every Act of Parliament in which the words occur in great detail like this. It surely is not necessary to give a definition of generally accepted words. I do not understand why the Bill as originally drafted, where there was no definition, was not good enough.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

I can only say that there has been an enormous amount of litigation on these very words, and I want to have a comprehensive definition in order that the Act shall not cause litigation if it can be avoided.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

And that is what the lawyers understand!

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

I think so

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. ATKINSON

I beg to move, in page 22, line 2, after the word "entitled," to insert the words "as between himself and the lessee."

This raises an important point, because, if anything is essential in this Bill, it is essential to have it made perfectly clear. The present definition is taken from the Agricultural Holdings Act. As a short way of stating my own argument, I will read what was said about it in the Court of Appeal three or four months ago by Lord Justice Atkin. The definition has led to a great deal of litigation because no one knows what, it means. He said: I agree in thinking it most desirable to have it made clear who is the person liable to pay compensation to the tenant and thereby obviate a great deal of litigation which must necessarily follow from the doubtful meaning of the statutory definition of ' landlord ' as ' the person for the time being entitled to receive the rents and profits of the land.' Do those words mean the person entitled to receive the rents and profit as between himself and the tenant, or the person entitled to receive them as between himself and his vendor, a former owner? Do the words include other persons beneficially interested in the rents and profits, a Cestui que trust, for instance, or an equitable mortgagee? And do they ever include a purchaser under a contract of sale, and, if so, in what circumstances do they include him? I do not propose to try and solve these doubts now. Then he added, Perhaps I may add there is a proposal on foot for extending compensation to tenants, other than agricultural tenants in respect of improvements. I cannot refrain from expressing the hope that any proposed legislation should point out as clearly as possible the person who is to pay the compensation and that the definition of that person should as far as possible correspond with the definition of the person liable to pay compensation under the Agricultural Holdings Act. The House will see from that the number of problems that may arise and the number of difficulties that may face a tenant when he comes to make his claim. The words I suggest: Any person for the time being entitled 'as between himself and the lessee ' "— will answer all these questions in a perfectly simple way. The tenant will know that the only person he has to go for and can go for is the person to whom he pays his rent. He must know that. There can be no mistake about it. It seems to me highly desirable that the tenant should be protected in regard to the persons against whom he must make his claim, and I suggest that these words which I have proposed answer all the difficulties which have been raised with regard to the question of definition. I have submitted the question to the Lord Justice in question and be agrees that this Amendment would solve the difficulties and make the definition intelligible and so prevent litigation.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

I know, of course, of the decision of the Lord Justice in question and his view as to the difficulties of interpretation. My hon. and learned Friend was good enough to send me with his Amendment an extract from the statement by the Lord Justice. I believe there have been three decisions in the Court of Appeal saying that the definition in the Agricultural Holdings Act is wrong, and I think on each occasion they have tried to draft a definition themselves. I am very much obliged to my hon. and learned Friend who tells me for the first time that the Lord Justice in question agrees with his Amendment. That opinion, of course, and the opinion of my hon. and learned Friend carries very great weight with me, but I wish to take an opportunity of considering the matter. It is a purely legal question and I do not think that I ought to accept the definition even from the Lord Justice himself until I have considered the matter with my advisers. Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend will withdraw the Amendment for the time being.

Mr. ATKINSON

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.