Clause 30.—(OPPOSITION BY LANDLORD TO APPLICATION FOR NEW TENANCY.) (Hansard, 17 June 1954)

§ Sir H. Lucas-Tooth
I beg to move, in page 23, line 34, after "requirements," to insert: (including the requirement to preserve goodwill). This is an Amendment to subsection (1, e).
The subsection enables the landlord to obtain possession by providing alternative accommodation, and this Amendment fulfils a promise which was made during the Committee stage to see whether any strengthening of the wording of the paragraph was needed, and to ensure that goodwill was taken into account in providing alternative accommodation.

§ Sir H. Lucas-Tooth
I beg to move, in page 24, line 4, to leave out paragraph (g), and to insert: (g) that on the termination of the current tenancy the landlord intends to demolish or reconstruct the premises comprised in the holding or a substantial part of those premises or to carry out substantial work of construction on the holding or part thereof and that he could not reasonably do so without obtaining possession of the holding. The purpose of this Amendment is to cover the case where a building is to be put on a bare site and it fulfils a promise to meet two points made during the Committee stage by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens). The first point was whether, under paragraph (g), a landlord could obtain possession for the purpose of redevelopment of a kind which could be carried out while the tenant was in occupation of the premises.
I think that the word "reasonably" in line 5 of the original sub-paragraph is sufficient to give the court discretion, but 2443 this Amendment makes the matter clear beyond any possibility of doubt. The second point is that under the sub-paragraph as drafted, a court might be held to have jurisdiction on the question whether a landlord's scheme was appropriate and suitable; but the local planning authority would here be the responsible body, and it would be an impossible position if possession was refused because the court considered that the plans were unreasonable after the planning authority had approved them. This Amendment makes impossible any such divided jurisdiction, and I commend it to the House.

§ Sir F. Soskice
This Amendment is one which I do not think improves the Bill and it is one on which we, on this side of the House, have considerable reservations. What it does is simply to put in another form the provisions in Clause 30 by which a landlord who wants to demolish or reconstruct premises is afforded grounds on which he can oppose the tenant's application for a new lease.
There are other Amendments down to leave out sub-paragraph (g) of Clause 30, and another to leave out sub-paragraph (h), and a third to leave out the words, "or partly for the purposes." Might I ask whether it would be in order if we discussed these together, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because they all apply to the grounds on which we base our opposition?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew)
The Amendment concerning sub-paragraph (g) has not been selected, nor has the other in the name of the right hon. and learned Gentleman —the third to which he referred. The second one to which he referred has been selected.

§ Sir F. Soskice
Then it would probably be for the convenience of the House if we discussed the Amendment to leave out paragraph (h) together with the present Amendment. I will try to put our objections as shortly as possible.
Clause 30 is of very great importance. It sets out in a number of paragraphs various grounds which can be urged by the landlord in the opposition raised by him to a request from the tenant for an extension of a business tenancy. We take 2444 the view that the reasons alleged in paragraphs (g) and (h) are wholly irrelevant for the purpose of the tenant's application and should not be in the Bill at all. Paragraph (g) relates to a desire by the landlord to reconstruct and paragraph (h) to his desire to occupy the holding or part of it for the purpose of carrying on a business himself.
The Bill is based on the general assumption which we think valid that the rights of the occupying tenant should take preference over the rights of an investing landlord. Broadly, it should not be a ground for defeating the tenant's right to have his tenancy extended in order to carry on his business that the landlord wishes to rebuild or reconstruct the premises. That is what I might loosely call an investment purpose. It means that, generally speaking, the landlord has in mind to combine the premises with some other premises and create a new income-earning asset of an investment character. It is something which he wishes to hold and possess as a landlord.
Similarly, so far as paragraph (h) is concerned, we think it entirely irrelevant and inappropriate to what is under consideration that the landlord should again be entitled to defeat the right of the tenant by saying that he wishes to carry on some business on the premises—or he may say even less, that he wishes to use only part of the premises for that purpose.
A point is not improved by repetition, as hon. Members will agree. I have stated it, and it is not as if we were stating it here for the first time. But we wish to place on record our disapproval of this aspect of the Clause, because we think, as we have constantly urged, that a tenant's rights should be regarded as antecedent to these desires on the part of the landlord.
No doubt the Government will not agree with that point of view. They have put down their own Amendment, and they were adamant in their refusal when we urged these arguments in Committee. But I am hoping against hope that the Home Secretary will give this matter further consideration, bearing in mind that, broadly, he has accepted the principle on which we say that the Bill should be founded.

§ Mr. Hale
I do not wish to detain the House and what I have to say may be expressed very shortly. It seems to me 2445 that here there is an alteration of substance. The word "reasonable" has been altered. Reading paragraph (g) as originally drafted it states that on the termination of the current tenancy the landlord reasonably requires possession"— for his purposes. That gave the county court judge or the tribunal the option of saying, "This is a subterfuge. This demand for reconstruction is to get the tenant out." It gave the county court judge or the tribunal a chance to consider the matter.
In the Amendment the word "reasonable" is given a different connotation and position—

§ Sir Ian Fraser (Morecambe and Lonsdale)
Do not be so cross; it does not suit you.

§ Mr. Hale
I am trying not to take up the time of the House, but if I get the sort of opposition from hon. Members opposite which has just been going on I shall detain the House—let there be no mistake about that. Hon. Members will be aware that if I do decide to detain the House I shall do so.
We are talking about a matter of great gravity and because hon. Members were kept last night we have tried to cut the discussion short, and in the last few minutes we have let pass a number of things which we should like to have opposed. We have tried not to keep people up, but if I get the sort of imbecile comment which has just come from the other side of the Chamber I shall have to change my attitude. If hon. Members wish to jibe across the Chamber I shall have to deal with them in my own way. If the hon. Member opposite wishes to say something I will give way.

§ Sir I. Fraser
I merely said, 'Do not be so cross; it does not suit you."

§ Mr. Hale
I am obliged to the hon. Member, but if he had said it so that it could be heard properly it would have been better.
To resume what I was saying, a landlord will only have to say that it will pay him to reconstruct, that the house is in poor condition, and the tenant is not one whom he wishes to keep. As I understand the present wording, the landlord would be entitled to possession because under the Clause he is entitled 2446 to end the tenancy if he intends to demolish or reconstruct. He has only to establish before a county court judge that he genuinely intends to reconstruct. The word "reasonably" only applies to the fact that he could not do it without getting possession. The tenant is put in a difficult situation. I think that the word "reasonably" should remain in the Bill.

§ Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe
The difficulty we were in was the need to avoid a divided jurisdiction between the planning authority and the tribunal. That is why the alteration is put in that way. I would like to have a look at the point, and to study the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). This is not a point of political difference. It is an effort to find the best way to express our requirement.
Regarding the point raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) the difficulty arises from the importance one attaches to the temporary letting of the growing business. One has to consider it in the case not only of shops but also of industrial undertakings, where expansion is desired in the future but immediate use is not. It is a difficult point. I cannot make a firm promise, but I will look into it.

§ Mr. G. Thomas
Will the Home Secretary also bear in mind the case of blocked buildings. The University of London seven years ago turned out people and pulled down property, but it has still not been able to erect anything on the land. Is there to be any guarantee that it will be possible to go on with plans before people are turned out?

§ Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe
That is an interesting point which I will look at.

§ Mr. Turner-Samuels
I must say a word about paragraph (h). The Home Secretary has not said anything in reply to the observations which have been made. As long as a landlord submits the ground that he wants the premises wholly or partly to carry on his business the county court judge is compelled to order the tenant to give up possession and that he is no longer entitled to a new lease.
That is an absolutely fantastic ground upon which to get the premises back. What aggravates that situation is that 2447 the tenant, having been got out on that pretext—it may be nothing more than a pretext—gets no compensation whatsoever for his goodwill. In this fantastic situation, the court, under the operation of the Clause, is bound to give possession. The only condition imposed is that the landlord should be in possession of the premises for five years after he obtains them.
On payment of a nominal sum of only twice the rateable value—in this context the Home Secretary likes twice the rateable value and in another context he dislikes it very much—a sum it may be of only £100, the landlord may acquire a business worth literally thousands of pounds. On a matter of such moral consideration I cannot imagine how the Home Secretary can remain reticent and not say a word in justification or explanation of this extraordinary provision.
A most unusual element is that all the landlord need do is to go to the county court and say that he intends to occupy the premises. Overnight, the intention may evaporate. He may not occupy the property, but may exploit it by selling the goodwill and the premises for a large sum. It is far too late for me to elaborate this matter, but I ask the Home Secretary to concentrate upon it for a few moments and to ask himself whether it is a decent thing that the landlord should perform this act of deprivation upon any individual citizen who has a business and goodwill.
At this late hour—in a double sense of the words, both in regard to the stage of the Bill and of the night—I ask the Government to look at these points and, perhaps in another place, to modify them in a way that will not compromise with decency and will do what is right.

§ Sir F. Soskice
With the permission of the House, I should like to speak again to thank the Home Secretary for what he said in reply to me. I extend that to what has been said by my. hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels). If you, Mr. Speaker, should select our Amendment to leave out paragraph (h), I shall not move it, in view of what has been said by the Home Secretary.

§ Sir H. Lucas-Tooth
I beg to move, in page 24, line 13, at the end, to insert "or as his residence."
During the Committee stage, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Devon, North (Brigadier Peto) moved an Amendment to enable the landlord to obtain possession for his own occupation where he intended to use the premises for residential and not for business purposes. My right hon. and learned Friend, the Home Secretary. expressed sympathy with the principle and undertook to meet the point on Report, and this Amendment gives effect to that.
Perhaps I should say, in case anyone has any misgivings on the subject, that to obtain possession the landlord will have to intend to use the whole of the premises and not part of the premises. In other words, he will not be able to recover substantial premises in order to use part of them. I think that will allay the suspicions that have been felt in some quarters over this Amendment.

§ Sir F. Soskice
I do not think we ought to accept that without posing a query. This, again, offends against the principle that the pre-eminent right is the right of the tenant to go on carrying on his business on the premises. I quite agree, that an Amendment enabling the landlord to obtain the premises for living in them, is not as objectionable, by a long way, as the proposal that he should be able to obtain the premises simply as an investment.
We have our reservations about that, but I do not think we shall seek to voice them by going into the Division Lobby. Nevertheless, we feel there is very considerable doubt to be felt as to whether the landlord's desire to live in the premises could be held to entitle him to oust the tenant from the premises in which he is making his living.

§ Sir H. Lucas-Tooth
I beg to move, in page 24, line 20, at the end, to insert: and at all times since the purchase or creation thereof the holding has been comprised in a tenancy or successive tenancies of the description specified in subsection (1) of section twenty-three of this Act. This Amendment deals with a point raised in Committee by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) on subsection (2) of the Clause. 2449 The effect of the subsection is that the landlord cannot seek possession for his own occupation unless, broadly speaking, he is a landlord of five years' standing. The right hon. Gentleman said that this bore hardly upon the shop-keeper who had bought premises next door to his shop in order to extend his business. Having bought the premises, he might not be able to let them for five years. The object of the subsection is to prevent the landlord buying over the head of the sitting tenant, just as his lease is coming to an end, with a view to turning the tenant out and getting the premises himself.
If the premises were empty when the landlord bought them, and if, since buying them, he has let them until he is ready to occupy, there is not the same need to make him wait for five years before he is entitled to possession. The effect of the Amendment is that the landlord must be of five years' standing only if the premises have been let to a business tenant throughout the period since the landlord obtained his interest. If they were empty at the time of the acquisition, or have since become empty, he can apply for possession without waiting for the five years to run out.

Mr. Glenvil Hall
May I, quite quickly, thank the hon. Gentleman and the Government for meeting our wishes in this way? As I understood the explanation, it covers the point quite adequately and we are grateful.