LETTINGS BY PERSONS NOT ABSOLUTE OWNERS. (Hansard, 7 August 1896)

§ *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE
moved, in Sub-section (1), to leave out, the words— Provided that where a fine or premium was received, it shall be lawful for the Court to dismiss the tenant's application if the justice of the case so requires. Provided also that the Land Commission, before fixing the fair rent for the first time in respect of a tenancy to which this section applies, shall give the prescribed notice to such person entitled on such cesser or to some person appointed by the Land Commission to represent his interest, but the failure or neglect of the Land Commission to give such notice shall not affect the validity of the order. and to insert instead thereof, as a new sub-section, the following:— Provided that where a fair rent has been fixed after the passing of this Act in the case of a tenancy to which this section applies, the person entitled on the said cesser to receive the rent of the holding may, within the prescribed time after becoming entitled to receive such rent, apply to the Court in the prescribed manner, and the Court, after giving such person and the tenant of the holding an opportunity of being heard, may proceed as follows—
(a) if of opinion that by reason of a fine or premium having been paid the rent was reduced, or that otherwise the fair rent fixed was unreasonable, the Court may vary the fair rent; and

(b) if of opinion that a, fair rent ought not to have been fixed, the Court shall declare that the said person and the tenant shall he in the same position as if this section had not been enacted."
The noble Lord said that, under the present law, a tenancy created by a limited owner terminated on the cesser of the limited owner's interest. The Government thought that where the letting was bonâ fide, although made by a limited owner, the tenant's interest should survive when the interest of the limited owner ceased. But the Government recognised that it was necessary to give ample protection to the interest of reversioners, and that the reversioner or mortgagee should be protected against fraudulent lettings or against the creation of new tenancies by the owner who had no right to create them. It was thought there might be a proviso that in the case of all first applications to fix a fair rent, notice should be served upon the person entitled to succeed the limited owner on his cesser of the interest. Further consideration had convinced them that this 10 arrangement would be an unworkable one. In the case of an ordinary application to fix a fair rent the Court would be obliged to ascertain whether the person who made the letting was or was not a limited owner. If he was, the family solicitor would be applied to for an abstract of the title to ascertain who the person was who would be entitled to succeed when the limited owner's interest came to an end. Then in the numerous cases filed in the Land Commissioner's Court the Court would have to refuse to recognise an agreement until proof was forthcoming that the tenancy had not been created by a limited owner, or that due notice had been served upon the person entitled to such notice. In the case of fair rents fixed in county Cork all this would lead to an intolerable amount of investigation and trouble. The Government proposed as a better plan that they should give up the idea of serving a notice upon the reversioner, but that, whenever he came to succeed to the estate, he should then be able to object to a tenancy created by his predecessor, either upon the ground that the tenancy was created in a fraudulent manner—say, in consideration of the payment of a fine—or that it was created by a person who had no right to create it. In a case of that kind, if the Court were satisfied that the tenancy was created in a fraudulent manner and the rent was an improper rent, it would be open under this clause to the Court to revise the rent. If, on the other hand, the Court was of opinion that the tenancy was created by some one who had no right to create it, then the fair rent could be quashed altogether, leaving the parties in the position which they occupied before the fair rent was fixed. The Government believed that would be a much more reasonable mode of procedure than that which was adopted when the Bill was in the House of Commons, and with that object he moved the Amendment.

§ LORD MACNAGHTEN
thought the Amendment was undoubtedly a very great improvement on the clause as it stood, and he did not think there would be any objection to it.

§ *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE
moved, in Sub-section (2), after the word "holding," to insert the words "the substantial part of."

§ LORD MACNAGHTEN
had the next Amendment on the Paper, to leave out from the word "voidable" to the end of the clause. The noble Lord said he had considered the matter since the previous night, and he thought the clause did substantially meet the objection he raised to a former clause. He should, however, like the noble Marquess to consider the last line but one, which contained the expression that the tenancy would materially "diminish the value as a residence of the mansion-house situate on and theretofore occupied with the demesne." He did not quite understand what was meant by the word value. Did it mean pecuniary value? He did not think it was intended to mean that, and he would suggest that the expression "diminish the value as a residence" should be left out, and that the clause should run, "would materially interfere with the enjoyment of the mansion."

THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND
thought the words "value as a residence" were wide and useful terms which would cover all cases that it was designed to cover. He would, however, before the Report stage, consider the suggestion of his noble Friend.