SMALL BUSINESS DWELLING HOUSES (Hansard, 17 November 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. My object in seeking to introduce this Bill is to remove an anomaly which arose in consequence of the provisions of the Rent Act, 1957. The first person on whom I called in Leicester during the General Election, by a strange coincidence, happened to be a man who was complaining very bitterly that he had been deprived of his occupation of a shop which was part of a dwelling-house and of which he could not otherwise have been deprived without a court order.

The House will know that one of the objectives of the Rent Acts since 1915 has been to give security of tenure to persons occupying houses of up to a certain rateable value. Owing to the lack of housing accommodation, which is still prevalent, it has been found necessary to continue some protection.

The Rent Act, 1957, decontrolled houses above the rateable value of £40 in London and £30 in the provinces. It contained some provisions for protecting such tenants against dispossession for limited periods. However, when the protective measures were to come to an end, within a comparatively short time after the passing of the Act, it was possible for a tenant to be evicted by the landlord, or by the landlord's bailiff.

I pointed out on a number of occasions that that would be the effect of the 1957 Act and, although the Government denied my contention, it was found by them that this was the legal position. In 1958, legislation had to be passed to prevent eviction without a court order. That was due to the 986 serious hardship suffered by many people through the provisions of the 1957 Act.

Section 1 (1) of the Landlord and Tenant (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1958, which accordingly was passed, reads as follows: It shall not be lawful for the owner of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies— (a) to enforce against the occupier, otherwise than by proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction, the right to recover possession of a dwelling-house … Under Section 3 of that Act, the court was entitled to withhold or postpone the execution of an order for possession for certain periods on various grounds. I draw attention to one of those grounds: that having regard to all the circumstances of the case greater hardship"— and I emphasise "greater hardship"— would be caused by making an order for possession without such suspension of execution as is provided by this section than by granting such suspension. Throughout the operation of the Rent Acts, hardship has been a question which the courts have been entitled to take into consideration. Indeed, in the vast majority of cases hardship was the ground on which possession was refused to landlords. If the tenant could prove that he would suffer greater hardship by being dispossessed than the landlord would suffer if the order for possession were made, then the court would refuse an order.

Certain transitional provisions were made in a paragraph of the 1957 Rent Act for the decontrol period. That paragraph, unhappily, also included a subsection which said: This paragraph shall not apply to a tenancy to which, immediately after the time of decontrol, Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, applies. It is that to which I refer in seeking leave to introduce this Bill.

It resulted in creating an anomaly. The small shopkeeper who happened to be the tenant of a house of which part was used as a shop was not protected, even to the small extent provided by the 1957 Act, but if it had been used only as a dwelling-house it would still have been protected by the provisions of the 1957 Act, as well as the 1958 Act. I am prepared to give the Government the benefit 987 of the doubt and to agree that the intention was to allow small shopkeepers the protection which was afforded by the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954.

The difficulty is that while the 1954 Act allows a shopkeeper, in certain circumstances, to get an extension of his tenancy, one categorical provision of that Act said that if a landlord desired to occupy the premises himself, for business purposes or as his residence, the court could do nothing about it and the tenant could be turned out by the landlord or his bailiff without a court order.

That position is absurd. It means, for example, that a man who has a small greengrocery shop in part of the premises which he occupies as a dwelling-house and which has a certain rateable value can be turned out, whereas if he did not have such a shop in the premises he could not be turned out without a court order. No one will want circumstances of that kind to continue.

I have previously mentioned here the case of a tenant of premises of that kind for thirty years who was turned out by his landlords who wanted the premises—they did not need them and there was no question of hardship—for business purposes, as an accountancy department or something of that sort. They had a number of other buildings surrounding the shop which they could have used. The court could do nothing about it. I happened to be acting in the case and the judge asked me bluntly and plainly whether I suggested that anything could be done. I had to admit that nothing could be done, but said that I hoped that he would make a comment to help to remove the difficulty.

988 I am asking for something which is reasonable and which will protect thousands of small shopkeepers. I have just had a letter from my constituency from a shopkeeper who is to be turned out in June. It is wrong that small shopkeepers should be treated in this way. Their livelihoods, as well as their homes, are affected, and I cannot believe that any hon. Member or anybody else would like that state of affairs to continue. I have much pleasure in asking the House to give me leave to introduce the Bill.