§ Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
§ Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ House in Committee accordingly:
§ [The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
§ Clause 1:
§ Provisions as to short tenancies.
§ (5) If the local authority in whose area any such dwelling-house is situated issue a certificate that the dwelling-house has been repaired to the extent mentioned in the last foregoing subsection the production of the certificate shall, at any time while the certificate remains in force, be sufficient evidence that the house is lit for the purposes of this section at that time, unless the contrary is proved:
§ For the purposes of this subsection, an instrument purporting to be such a certificate as aforesaid and to be signed by an officer of a local authority shall, without further proof, be deemed to be a certificate issued by the local authority, unless the contrary is proved.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON)The first Amendment on the Paper is drafting. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 5, at end insert ("as is")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert in subsection (5), at the beginning of the last paragraph:
The functions of a local authority under this subsection may be exercised on their behalf by such officers as may be authorised in writing by the authority, and
§ The noble and learned Viscount said: It has been suggested that, as the Bill 888 now stands the provision which is contained in Clause I empowering the local authority to issue a certificate that the dwelling-house is fit would require a solemn meeting of the whole local council every time such a certificate is required. That was not the intention, and in order to make matters quite plain, I move this Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 39, at the beginning insert ("The functions of a local authority under this subsection may be exercised on their behalf by such officers as may be authorised in writing by the authority, and")—(The Lord Chancellor).
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThe next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 42, leave out ("issued by the local authority") and insert ("duly issued").—(The Lord Chancellor).
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 2:
§ Conditional Notice of Retention.
§ (2) As soon as the War Damage Commission have determined whether the payment under Part I of the War Damage Act, 1941, in respect of the war damage to any land to which a conditional notice of retention relates is to be a payment of cost of works or a value payment, they shall serve a notice on the tenant stating their determination, and if the Commission determine to make a value payment subsections (2) and (3) of Section eight and subsections (1) to (3) of Section nine of the principal Act (which relate to the effect of a notice of disclaimer) shall have effect as if—
§ (a) the conditional notice of retention were a notice of disclaimer served on the date on which notice of the Commission's determination was served;
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (2), after the second "effect," to insert "as from the date on which the determination becomes final." The noble and learned Viscount said: The first Amendment on this clause is to insert the words on the Paper, but in truth this Amendment is only one of a number of small Amendments the substance of which comes out in the Amendment on Clause 8, page 11, line 39. If I may have your Lordships' permission I will refer to that now. By a number of Amendments, a 889 difficulty is resolved which the Bill as reaching this House from another place might leave in doubt. Your Lordships may recall that on Second Reading I explained that a tenant might hesitate whether he should disclaim his lease until he knew whether there was going to be a money payment in respect of the damage done. If public funds are going to provide for repairing premises, that would be a reason why he should retain his lease; if instead he is only to get his share, at the end of the war, of compensation, that may be a reason why he would hesitate to retain his lease. It is, therefore, necessary to provide what the Bill describes, I think, as a conditional notice of retention.
§ That is what these Amendments do, but in order to make that machinery effective it is necessary that the War Damage Commission should make their award in a form which the parties concerned will know is final, because there are certain rights of appeal and, as the result of the exercise of the right of appeal, the original decision might be varied. The effect, therefore, of this bundle of Amendments is to secure that the tenant who wants to preserve his light to disclaim may exercise that right when he knows what is the final determination, and may not be caught as it were, by an intermediate decision that might afterwards be varied. That explanation, I think, is sufficient to justify the Amendments on the Paper right down So Clause 8.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 4, after the second ("effect") insert ("as from the date on which the determination becomes final").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThe next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 6, leave out from the first ("on") to the end of line 7 and insert ("that date").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThe next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 35, leave out ("notification under subsection (2) of this section of the").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
890§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThe next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 32, at end insert:
((8) Subject to subsection (4) of this section, the provisions of the principal Act which relate to the effect of a notice of retention shall, pending the determination of the War Damage Commission with respect to the kind of payment to be made in respect of the war damage to the land, apply to a conditional notice of retention in like manner as they apply to an unconditional notice of retention, and, in a case where the Commission do not determine to make a value payment, shall continue so to apply").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 3 [Leases comprising separate hereditaments]:
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORAll the Amendments upon this clause are consequential, and I move that they be agreed to.
§
Amendments moved—
Page 6, line 37, leave out from beginning to ("to") and insert ("determine")
Page 6, line 40, leave out ("notice was served") and insert ("determination became final")
Page 7, line 7, leave out ("notice of")
Page 7, line 8, leave out ("been served") and insert ("become final")
Page 7, line 11, leave out ("notice of")
Page 7, line 12, leave out ("was served") and insert ("became final")
Page 7, line 24, leave out from ("and") to end of line 27 and insert ("as if the date on which it becomes final were postponed for one month or, in a case where an application has been made under subsection (1) of this section, for such longer period as the Court may fix").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 4 agreed to.
§ Clause 5 [Obligation to reinstate in case where payment of cost of works is made]:
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThe two Amendments to this clause down in my name are consequential. I beg to move.
§
Amendments moved—
Page 8, line 14, after ("deemed") insert ("as from the date on which the determination becomes final")
Page 9, line 45, leave out ("of their determination") and insert ("on which their determination became final").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
891§ Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 6 [Provisions where tenant retains lease and value payment is made]:
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThe first Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 11, leave out ("of the Commission's determination") and insert ("on which the Commission's determination became final").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThe next Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 22, leave out ("notice of") where those words secondly occur.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThere is a third consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 23, leave out ("being served") and insert ("become final").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 7 agreed to.
§ Clause 8 [Notification by War Damage Commission of determination, etc.]:
§
THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert after subsection (1):
(2) For the purposes of this Act, a determination of the War Damage Commission with respect to the kind of payment (if any) to be made under Part I of the War Damage Act, 1941, in respect of war damage to land comprised in a lease shall become final—
(3) Where any such determination of the War Damage Commission is affected in a material respect as the result of such an appeal, the determination shall cease to have effect for the purposes of this Act and the War Damage Commission shall, as soon as the new
892
determination has been made, give notice thereof in accordance with this Act.
§ The noble and learned Viscount said: This is the substantial Amendment to which I referred just now, and if your Lordships look at it you will see that the series of Amendments previously made are mere definitions in order that this principal change may be effected. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 39, at end insert the said new subsections.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 9 agreed to.
§ Clause 10:
§ Application of principal Act to ground leases.
§ 10.—(1) The principal Act shall apply to ground leases in like manner as it applies to other leases, and accordingly Sections thirteen and fourteen of that Act shall cease to have effect.
§ (2) A notice of disclaimer, a notice of retention, or a notice to elect may be served under Section four of the principal Act in respect of war damage to land comprised in a ground lease, whether the damage occurred before or after the passing of this Act.
§ (3) The following provisions shall apply with respect to notices served before, or proceedings pending at, the passing of this Act:—
§ (a) a notice of disclaimer, a notice of retention or a notice to elect served before the passing of this Act in relation to any lease shall not be deemed to be of no effect on the ground that the lease is a ground lease, unless the Court has so determined before the passing of this Act under Section fourteen of the principal Act, and in that case the determination shall be without prejudice to the serving of a new notice; but nothing in this section shall affect any order of the Court made before the passing of this Act under Section thirteen of the principal Act
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (3), after "Act," where that word secondly occurs, to insert "or the parties have so agreed (whether expressly or impliedly) before the passing of this Act." The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment seems to be needed to meet a small point which has been raised by those who have examined the Bill. A notice of disclaimer or retention may have been served before the passing of the Bill in respect of a ground lease and, on a landlord pointing out that the notice is bad, the tenant may have accepted that view and withdrawn 893 the notice That may have been done expressly as the result of an interchange of letters or agreement, or it may have been done tacitly as a result of the tenant not proceeding with his notice and continuing to pay rent. I am informed that actual cases of this difficulty have been brought to the notice of the Attorney-General. In such cases the notice ought to be treated in the same way as a notice which is determined by the Court to be a bad notice. It ought not to stand in the way of the service of a new notice. That result is secured by the Amendment I now move and by a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 4, after ("Act") insert ("or the parties have so agreed (whether expressly or impliedly) before the passing of this Act").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThe next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 5, leave out ("determination") and insert ("serving of the said notice").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to the clause:
and the Court shall not exercise its powers under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of Section nine of the principal Act—
§ The noble and learned Viscount said: The matter dealt with in this Amendment and the expressions in it are technical and perhaps your Lordships would wish me to explain in a sentence or two the broad results. This Amendment meets a point which has been raised in connection with this Bill that the Court may, as matters stand, exercise its powers under Section 9 (1) (a) of the principal Act so as to antedate a notice of disclaimer given in 894 respect of a ground lease and give a greater measure of retrospectivity to the section than was intended. It is understood that some County Courts have already used this power so as to date a disclaimer back to the occurrence of the damage. They may be persuaded where notice is given after the passing of this Bill to give retrospective effect so as to include a substantial period before the passing of the Bill. If they did, it would mean that a landlord would be deprived of his rent in respect of a period during which the principal Act did not apply to a ground lease, which is not the intention at all. It is perhaps not very likely that County Court Judges would do that, but now that the point has been raised it seems better to meet it. The two paragraphs deal with separate cases where notice is given before or after the passing of the Bill. I am aware that these are difficult things to follow, but I have studied this proposal carefully and I tell your Lordships that I am quite satisfied that it is right to insert this Amendment and that there is risk, if you do not insert it, that injustice may be done.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 20, at end insert the said new paragraphs.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAMMay I ask if the noble and learned Viscount is satisfied with the phrase "which appears to the Court to be a ground lease"? That is a new phrase to me as regards something which enables the Court to exercise powers. Would not the right phrase be something of this sort "which is proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be a ground lease"? What do you mean by "which appears"? It is, I think, a new invention. I may be wrong about that, but I cannot remember having seen the phrase before. Surely the Court can only act in a case of this kind on evidence. If the noble and learned Viscount will consider the matter before the next stage I shall be quite content. It is probably only a matter of form.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThis Amendment raises a point which, as the noble and learned Viscount has said, deals with an extremely technical matter, but it affects very important interests. I hope, therefore, the Government will give us a short time between this stage and the next to appreciate how matters exactly stand. 895 I know that in these days the idea is to hurry legislation through as quickly as possible, but I cannot think that a short delay before the next stage of this Bill will be of very great importance, and it will enable your Lordships to do your work more satisfactorily to yourselves if time is given to see how the Bill stands after the Committee stage is finished.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI have not consulted the noble Lord the Leader of the House as to the future stages of this Bill, but speaking for myself I should certainly wish that the changes which may be made in Committee on what is admittedly a rather complicated matter, should be made in circumstances which give the House time to consider them. Certainly that consideration shall be borne in mind. I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Viscount Maugham. The definition of what is a ground lease is, as I dare say he remembers, one of the definitions of the original Act, and I have no doubt he will look at that afresh and consider whether the suggestion he makes would be an improvement. My mind is quite open about it and on the Report stage we can give further consideration as to whether some substitution of words is desirable.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ On Question, whether Clause 10, as amended, shall be agreed to?
THE EARL OF ILCHESTERI should like to say a few words on the whole question of ground rents, as I was unable to be present at the Second Reading of this Bill. My sole desire is to see this extremely difficult question cleared up as far as possible and treated justly. The question of rack rents has, I think, been treated very fairly, but I cannot say the same for the way in which ground rents are being treated under this clause, and I confess that the explanation given by the noble and learned Lord Chancellor on the last occasion did not make me feel any happier about it. Under the original Bill, if the lessee is not satisfied he goes to the Court, and there have been many cases, I am told, where this has been done, and in every case the Court has given the landowner some compensation—two, three or four years' rent as compensation. It is now proposed to wipe that out altogether, but, if the Court has been giving compensation in such cases, the landowner must surely have a right to something.
896 I agree that the way in which this matter is treated in the original Bill is not satisfactory, but the noble and learned Lord Chancellor, in dealing with that point, referred only to the question of subtenants. That is a very important point, I agree, because it usually refers to large blocks of flats which have been swept away; but in the case of ordinary houses, it is usually a tenant and not a sub-tenant who has to be considered. The noble and learned Viscount also said that the landlord should shoulder a share of the burden, but, under the arrangement now proposed, the landlord will apparently shoulder the whole burden; he will have to stand "the whole racket." The balance has been bumped down, so to speak, on the other side, and I am sure that many of your Lordships will agree with me that the worst way to correct an injustice is to cause another one.
I should like very briefly to remind your Lordships of how a ground lease runs. The noble and learned Lord Chancellor says that one of the difficulties of the Bill is that the margin between rack rents and ground leases is very small. I certainly do not wish to argue that point with one of his great legal knowledge, but personally, so far as my own small property is concerned, I have never come across any great difficulty on that point. The way in which it works is this. A man wishes to build a house, and he goes to the landowner and covenants to build a house which will be returned to the landowner at the end of a very long period—usually ninety to a hundred years. I believe that in some cases, even including the London County Council, the period is a good deal less, but that actually helps the landowner. This contract is more on the land than on the building, yet, because the building disappears, the contract is to be made null and void. That seems a very hard provision, and it seems to press more hardly on the small owner than on the large owner.
I quite agree that the lessee who has built the house has expended his capital and his enterprise in developing it, but we must also remember that the ground landlord has done exactly the same in the past, because he has made the roads, put in the sewers and so on to make the plot capable of being built upon. I think that that fact must be borne in mind, but 897 sight is very often lost of it. Let me give one small instance. A very small owner has four or five houses, and a bomb comes clown and destroys them all. Then a second bomb, in the shape of this Bill, comes down and takes all the owner's money away, and he is left penniless. That does not seem a very fair proposal. Take another case. One or two houses in a row may be destroyed. As the contract has been completely swept away, it is improbable that anyone will ever construct a building in that empty space, which will it seems to me, be left as a memorial to Herr Hitler. That does not seem a very good arrangement either.
There is another point on which I should be very grateful for some information. What is the position of the mortgagee? Mortgages on ground rent have always been looked on as one of the primary securities, but surely if ground leases are to be disclaimed in this way, that security becomes nothing at all. There again I think that we have the rather curious anomaly that the big man who is able to build his house with his own money may disclaim, but the man who has to get a mortgage in order to build his house may not be able to do so, because, as I understand it, he would have to go to his mortgagee to obtain leave to disclaim. There may be some trouble there with regard to this clause.
All I ask is that the Government will watch this whole matter very closely. I do feel that there are many hard cases which are going to arise, and I think it is quite probable that the law will again have to be altered. If I may make one suggestion, it seems to me that some arrangement might have been made whereby no rent would be payable until the house was rebuilt at the end of the war, when compensation has been paid, and then a similar number of years might be added at the other end to the period of the lease. The Government might also help in this matter with regard to the payment of insurance and compensation. I understand that there will probably be a new Bill in the autumn on value payments and similar matters, and perhaps something could be done then to help in regard to what I feel is an undeniable hardship as things are at present. I noticed in the Press a few weeks ago that a member of the Government, dealing with one of the War Damage measures— 898 I think that it was this one, but I am not sure—said that it would create rough justice. I am very doubtful about the justice, but I think it is extremely rough on the landlords.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI think the House is grateful to the noble Earl for raising this matter—it is a very important matter and a very complicated matter—and for raising it in such moderate terms. The noble Earl, in the course of his speech, said that he recognised that the present law on this subject is not satisfactory, and it really is not, but unless you have some provision such as you find in Clause 10 what would the result be? This would be the result. You have war damage inflicted by German bombing on a particular plot of ground on which a house is built. The law already provides that, in those circumstances, the tenant notwithstanding the terms of his lease, his covenant, has the right to say: "I disclaim any further interest in this property. This is a misfortune which has overwhelmed my house, and I am no longer able to regard myself as tenant." He is entitled to do that, and if he does he is not under any liability to pay rent any more to his landlord. That is the position as it is in respect of ordinary tenants and ordinary landlords.
The question is, can you really have quite such a difference as between ground landlord and ground lessee? The ground landlord might have let the plot, let us say, for ninety-nine years to a ground lessee, who covenants that he will build upon the plot a house. Can you say—the law being what I have just described—by way of exception that in the case of the ground landlord and ground lessee, the whole of the loss is to fall on the ground lessee, and that he has got to go on paying his rent to the ground landlord just as though nothing had happened? It is true, of course, as my noble friend pointed out, and as we all understand, that really rent is only being paid for the ground. Still the ground lessee undertook to pay rent because he was going to build, indeed he was bound to build, a house upon the site from which he was going to get increased rent. As between the occupier of the house and the ground lessee the law provides that, if there is sufficient damage by enemy bombing, the occupier may repudiate any further liability to the ground lessee and leave him to look after 899 himself. Could it in these circumstances be right to say: "Yes, we do not want to interfere with that, that is all as it should be, an occupier ought to be at liberty to refuse to pay any more rent to his ground lessee, and as for the ground lessee he has got to go on paying rent to the ground landlord"? This is the real question with which this clause deals. The real principle of this clause is that when misfortune of the sort to which I have referred occurs it really has got to be borne by all who are interested. It cannot stop at the point of the ground lessee.
There was perhaps something more to be said for the other view originally, because that was formed before there had been any war damage scheme carried by the Government, and before there was any possibility of insurance. But I must submit to the Committee—and we all want to be entirely fair in this matter and to have no prejudices—that it does not seem to me to be justifiable that in the event of enemy bombing destroying a house, the tenant may be able to wash his hands of the business and say: "I pay no more rent," that the lessee must accept that decision and, therefore, be without any source out of which to pay his own rent to the ground landlord, but that the ground landlord should be entitled, whatever happens, to the house to say: "My rent has to be paid in respect of the ground. The ground is there, and you must continue to pay me until the end of the period." I do not think that the general sense of the community would recognise that as fair; it would, no doubt tend to agree with the noble Earl, who said that he did not agree with the existing arrangements as being entirely justified.
There is a further difficulty. It is so easy to speak about these things in general term, but it taxes the ingenuity even of a Government draftsman—and there is nobody more ingenious than a Government draftsman—to define what exactly you mean by ground lease, for there are endless cases in which there are interposed all sorts of intermediate interests which make it difficult to determine at what moment a long lease is a ground lease. The present law says:
'Ground lease' means lease at a rent (or, where rent varies, at a maximum rent) which does not substantially exceed the rent which a tenant might reasonably have been expected, 900 at the commencement of the term created by the lease, to pay for the land comprised in the lease, excluding any buildings, for a term equal to the term created by the lease.That does not cover everything because in normal practice the ground lessee is bound to build a house, a house of particular value, and that of course indirectly contributes to the value of the ground. My own view is that this clause, on the whole, will be found to be justified. I am sorry, and I say this with all sincerity to my noble friend, if some rough justice is involved. I do not deny that there must be under arrangements of this sort cases of some hardship. The best that Parliament can do is to make the rule in the form which on the whole conforms to the equities of the case. I think nobody will justify the law as it at present stands.I look at the present position in this way, in regard to ground owner, ground lessee and everybody else concerned. They are all of them interested in the totality which you may call "building on site," and they ought all to be required to shoulder the loss in proportion to their prospective interests. That is the substance of what is here being proposed. It has the effect of putting ground lessees in the same position under the principal Act as other lessees. I venture to say that this is a very complicated and very important matter, and, as the noble Marquess has suggested, there ought to be a little opportunity to consider it. Very great interests are involved—not only the interests of ground landlords, but the interests of many other people, including building societies. All we want to do is to do the fair thing, and that involves a great deal of care and consideration. I think it is generally agreed that the law as it stands to-day is not in the right form. It makes an exemption which is not justified. I know that in another place great efforts were made by the Attorney-General and others to put this clause in the best form practicable. It may be that there are other matters in connection with this to be considered, and, if so, and they are pointed out to me, I shall be very willing to consider them. I hope that for the time being, however, your Lordships will allow Clause 10 to stand part of the Bill.
§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAMWill the noble and learned Lord Chancellor tell us what is the position as to mortgagees? Of 901 course, I think it is clear that this notice of disclaimer cannot be given without the consent of the mortgagee of the property in question
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORIf my noble friend will allow me, I would prefer not to make an impromptu answer to this question, though I think I know what the answer is. It is better not to put oneself on record until one is thoroughly assured. IE this matter is raised on the Report stage I will then give an answer.
§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAMI thought that, possibly, it would be better, now, to remind the noble and learned Lord Chancellor to look into this matter. With regard to the substance of the suggested Amendments, I would venture to suggest this to the noble Lord, that it may he possible to frame Amendments to the present system, not touching the general principle involved in the amended Bill, because I can conceive there might be cases where injuries suffered by a ground landlord would be so great that there should be some satisfaction given to him in the matter. But so far as the principle is concerned, I confess that my view at present is that what the Lord Chancellor has said has got very great weight. I would only add, by way of apology for myself, that I had something to do with the principal Act, and I must admit quite frankly that I think in this respect the present Bill is an improvement.
§ On Question, Clause 10 agreed to.
§ Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 12, to insert the following clause:
§ Apportionment of rent in case of war damage to leased premises.
§ ". Where—
- (a) any lease is deemed to have been surrendered by virtue of Section eight of the principal Act (which relates to the effect of a notice of disclaimer); or
- (b) the rent payable under any lease ceases to be payable for any period by virtue of Section ten or Section eleven of the principal Act (which relate to the effect of a notice of retention and a notice to avoid disclaimer respectively), or, in the case of a short tenancy to which Section one of this Act applies, by virtue of that section;
§ The noble and learned Viscount said: This new clause which is printed on the Paper is to meet a case which has been mentioned to the Government and which undoubtedly may often arise. It is a case where the rent is paid in advance. If the rent is paid at the end of a period which causes it to be due, then the existing provisions of the law about disclaiming operate perfectly well. A tenant, for example, may disclaim his lease in the middle of a quarter, and the result will be that he ceases to be tenant from the time he disclaims, and the rent due will not be the rent for the whole quarter but a proportionate part. Supposing a lease is one in which he has to pay his rent in advance, it is much more difficult to determine whether any financial adjustment has to be made. Obviously a financial adjustment ought to be made. In the end he ought to be liable to account for rent which is proportionate to the period for which he retains his lease. That is the effect of this clause.
§
Amendment moved—
After Clause 12, insert the said new clause.—(Tlie Lord Chancellor.)
§ LORD NATHANMay I ask the Lord Chancellor whether he would consider making that provision retrospective? I think some hardship has already resulted from the operation of the law as it stands at present.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI certainly will consider what the noble Lord has suggested. I am not quite sure how the matter stands now.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Remaining clauses agreed to.
§ Schedule agreed to.