HC Deb 21 July 1931 vol 255 cc1446-7

The following words shall be added at the end of paragraph (4) of section thirty-two of the Act of 1911, "unless he himself shall have given written notice to the landlord that he is to terminate his tenancy."


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

Major WOOD

I think that the Government might have put forward some alternative to this Amendment. I understand that the object of it is to prevent the landlord being prejudiced by the tenant giving notice and then perhaps withdrawing the notice. No one has any desire that the landlord should be prejudiced, but I think there is no reason why the right hon. Gentleman should not have put forward a provision under which the tenant would be prevented from withdrawing his notice when, after notice had been given, something had happened which would prejudice the position of the landlord. If he had re-let it to someone else, it would be a fair thing to say that the tenant should not be allowed to withdraw the notice. But the mere fact that a tenant has given notice should not be a reason why he should be prevented from withdrawing it. If he gives notice and then soon afterwards withdraws it, he cannot have done so very much injury to the position of the landlord. I am not going to divide the House, but I think it is rather regrettable that the right hon. Gentleman should have seen fit to accept the Amendment.

Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 22, after new Clause B insert