§ Where a landlord of a holding, in pursuance of a provision in that behalf contained in the lease, resumes possession of any part of the holding without giving notice of his intention so to do, the provisions of paragraphs (b) and (c) (exclusive of the proviso thereto) of section thirty of the principal Act shall apply in like manner as if notice to quit had been given under the said section with regard to the part of the holding so resumed, provided that in assessing the compensation payable to the tenant, and the reduction of rent, any benefit or relief allowed to the tenant under the lease in respect of the resumption shall be taken into consideration.—[Mr. Johnston.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause, again, is an instance where general agreement was reached in Committee. I beg formally to move the Second Beading.
§ Sir F. THOMSONThis Clause was moved by our party in Committee, although the Government could not accept our words. I think it is a reasonable proposal. It deals with rather an obscure point. It is a common enough stipulation in a lease that the landlord shall be entitled to resume part of the holding for building and other purposes. In certain leases it is provided that notice shall be given, but in other leases 2307 there is no provision with regard to the giving of notice. If a landlord gives notice for the resumption of part of the holding as stipulated in the lease the tenant is entitled to compensation for disturbance, but if a landlord resumes any part of the holding, being entitled to do so by provision in the lease, and there is no stipulation in the lease for the giving of notice, the tenant is not entitled to compensation for disturbance. That is an anomaly which I do not think anyone can justify. This Clause proposes to remove that anomaly, and therefore we welcome it.
§ Clause added to the Bill.