HC Deb 05 February 1951 vol 483 cc1485-6

Amendment made: In page 10, line 22, to leave out paragraph (a).—[The Attorney-General.]

Sir P. Spens

I beg to move, in line 30, at the end, to add: Provided that—

  1. (i) the court shall have power to order a landlord or superior landlord whose interest will expire at or before the end of the said period to give notice of the application to his immediate landlord;
  2. (ii) the court shall not order the grant of a new tenancy by virtue of the provisions of this section unless the court is satisfied that a landlord or superior landlord whose reversion will he affected by the new tenancy has had an opportunity of appearing before the court and making representations in respect thereof.
The point here is a fairly short one. Clause 11 provides that where we get a reversion on a lease which is running out, before the expiration of a year there have to be two extensions, one for the first lease, one for the second and so on. The procedure is not very clear in the Act, but, so far as I can see, the tenant would only bring his immediate landlord to the court of first instance, and the Clause empowers the court to make an order which will affect superior reversioners. In these circumstances, it seems to us quite wrong that we should not give these superior reversioners notice of the matter so that they have a chance of being heard before the court, and we therefore suggest a proviso so that the superior landlord should have notice of what is going on and have a chance of being represented and of saying what he has to say.

The Attorney-General

We entirely agree with the object which the hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind. It is a procedural matter. We think it is better not to include procedural matters in the Bill itself, because it casts doubt on the extent of the rule-making power. We will, therefore, see—and I give this undertaking—that the point which has been put by him and which is a good one is covered by the county court rules.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

While welcoming what the learned Attorney-General has said, may I ask him to reconsider the question whether it should not appear in the Bill? In view of what is already contained in Clause 11, I should have thought it was necessary to have some special reference to the position of superior landlords, and it is really more useful to have it there defined than tucked away in some rule not so readily known.

The Attorney-General

I will certainly look at that.

Sir P. Spens

In view of the learned Attorney-General's undertaking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.