SMALL BUSINESS DWELLING -HOUSES (Hansard, 8 April 1959)

§ Mr. Barnett Janner (Leicester, North-West)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the recovery of possession, except by legal proceedings, of certain dwelling-houses partly used for business purposes released from control by subsection (1) of section eleven of the Rent Act, 1957, and to provide in certain cases for suspending for a limited period the execution of any order made in such proceedings; to regulate the terms and conditions as to rent and other matters to be applied in cases where possession of such dwelling-houses is retained pending the recovery of possession; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid. I ask leave to introduce this Bill because, in my view, and I believe in the view of the House, if it considers the position carefully, a serious injustice has been revealed as a result of the provisions of the 1957 Rent Act.

The House will remember that that Act decontrolled premises the rateable value of which was above £ 40 in London or £ 30 in the Provinces. Some provisional protections were provided for the tenants by paragraph 2 (6) of the Fourth Schedule to that Act. On this side of the House we pointed out that these would be far from sufficient to avoid considerable hardship being experienced by tenants who would be ejected if the Act continued in force. Ultimately, this was realised by the Minister and the Government and, Mr. Speaker, you will remember that a new Act was introduced in 1958 to give tenants an opportunity of some extension of the period during which they could be allowed to remain in their houses.

Before coming to the point I want to make, I should point out that it was made clear that because of the 1957 Act a person could be turned out of his home without any court proceedings being taken. These conditions are well known to the House and I do not propose to refer to them in detail.

Mixed residential and business property, that is, property used for the purpose of a dwelling-house as well as for the purpose of carrying on a small business or profession, was excluded from the benefits of the provision of paragraph 2 (6) of the Fourth Schedule of the 1957 Act. The owner of a small shop who lives on the 204 premises, or a professional man who both lives and carries on his profession on the premises, obtained no benefit from the Fourth Schedule to the 1957 Act after 6th July, 1957.

As the position stands at present he is also not entitled to any of the benefits of the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1958. The reason given at the time of the debates on the 1957 Rent Act for this exclusion was that such a shopkeeper or professional man is entitled to obtain possession of the premises under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, until the expiry of a notice of not less than six months and not more than a year, given to him by the landlord.

If such notice is given he is entitled to apply to the county court for the grant of a new tenancy. This, I think, is the nub of the position and the point I want to bring home to the House. The landlord can successfully oppose the granting of such a tenancy if he can show that one of the grounds set out in Section 30 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, applies to the case in question. The Act of 1954 contains many technical provisions not easily understandable to a layman, and frequently not to a lawyer. For example, the tenant must, within a specified period, apply for a new tenancy under the Landlord and Tenant Act, that is, within a period of not more than four and not less than two months from the time the landlord has served him with a notice terminating the tenancy.

Again, the tenant cannot make the application unless he has served a counter-notice on the landlord stating that he is unwilling to give up possession on the date stated in the landlord's notice. This counter-notice has to be given within two months of the service of the landlord's notice. Neither of the time limits can be extended, so if the tenant has failed to take either of these steps in time he cannot obtain a new tenancy under the 1954 Act. This means that he then would have no protection at all and can be ejected, even without court proceedings being taken.

I spoke a few moments ago about grounds on which the court must refuse to give the tenant a new tenancy. One of these grounds displays a clear injustice to the tenant. I was engaged in a case myself in which this position had arisen. 205 The landlord who intends to keep the premises himself either for business premises or as his residence, cannot be refused possession by a court under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1957, if the landlord bought the premises over the head of the sitting tenant five years or more before the end of the tenancy.

The House well knows that the landlord in such an event has not even got to prove that there would be hardship on him if a further tenancy were granted to the tenant. All he has to do is to satisfy the court that he intends to use the premises. It does not matter if he wants to do so for the purpose of his business or for the purpose of living there. He has not to prove need, hardship, or any of the consequences referred to in the many Rent Acts of the last forty years. All he has to do is to say "I want to live in these premises ", or "I want to carry them on as a business".

In the case to which 1 referred the tenant had been in the house for about thirty years. Part of it was being carried on as a business, and another place could not be obtained by the tenant. The landlords were owners of extensive premises, including those premises and many shops. The landlords said, "We want to put in some of our accountants or other employees." The judge held— and he was right in the law— that it did not matter whether the place was needed by the landlords. That was beside the legal point. The landlord had only to say he wanted to put those people in and the tenant had no protection whatsoever. 206 After he had applied to the court for a new tenancy and had been refused it, he had no further legal right to go to the court to seek any kind of protection or extension of his residence. I am sure that the whole House will agree that that is a very serious position and an anomaly. I hope that hon. Members will support me in my application for leave to introduce the Bill.