HC Deb 05 February 1951 vol 483 cc1486-7
Mr. Janner

I beg to move, in page 11, line 20, after "Where" to insert: the tenant has served a notice requiring a new lease of premises under section five of the said Act of nineteen hundred and twenty-seven and remains in possession of the premises under some undertaking given or otherwise until the termination of proceedings before the tribunal under the said Act of nineteen hundred and twenty-seven or where. Under this Clause, a section of the Landlord and Tenant Act is referred to, and an interim order can be made by a court, the effect of which is accepted as a protection for the tenant by the framers of this Bill, but this protection will not operate if the solicitors for the landlord have given an undertaking that no further step will be taken in the matter and the court has therefore refused to make an order. There has been a recent case on the point, and I think it is a matter on which some provision should be made to protect the tenant in respect of whom such an undertaking has been given.

The Solicitor-General

The case to which my hon. Friend refers is the British Colonial Furniture Company, Ltd. against William McIlroy, Limited, and in that case the Court of Appeal refused to give an interim order because the learned judges had said that they could not be expected to assume that the law would ultimately be enacted as in this Bill. They said they could only look at the law as it stood. It is obvious that the Amendment, if accepted, can only apply when the Bill becomes law, and that the courts will only have regard to its provisions as an existing Act of Parliament. That being so, it is reasonable to suppose that they will be ready to make interim orders in respect of these matters as in the case referred to. No possible purpose is served by this Amendment, which is completely irrelevant and could have no conceivable effect.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Weitzman

I would ask my right hon. and learned Friend to look at this matter again. It is not quite as simple as he has indicated in what he has said. If subsection (6) of Clause 12 becomes law, the position will be that when an undertaking is given by a landlord or some arrangement is made whereby parties remain in the premises until the matter is disposed of, when the matter comes before the court the court may well say that, as there is an undertaking, an interim order should not be made. It will do no harm whatever if this Amendment is accepted.

I should like to point out to my right hon. and learned Friend that if this Amendment is not accepted, a person who accepts that undertaking or remains in the premises in the absence of an interim order will be in a very difficult position. This is especially so where the undertaking has been given before the Bill becomes law. When the cause is eventually heard by the tribunal, if the subsection remains as it is now, there is no power whatever for the tribunal to say that the person's position until the order is made shall be considered as possession for the purposes of the Act. I am sure it was not the intention of those who drafted this Bill that an injustice of this kind should result, and I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to look at it again.

Mr. J. Foster

We regard this as an objectionable Amendment, but if there is anything in it, we will examine it and put something down before the Report stage.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.