§ Brigadier-General CROFTasked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been called to the fact that an officer, who was married during the War, purchased a house in the provinces which was let to a civilian occupier at a quarterly tenancy at a rental of £50 per annum, and on the strength of the contract this officer bought furniture in order to house his family, but he is now informed that he cannot get possession owing to the renewal of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, as the tenant does not expect to leave the house for eighteen months; and whether there is any remedy to meet a case of injustice such as this, where no profiteering is attempted and where the new owners of the house are forced to remain in rooms?
§ Sir G. HEWARTMy attention has not hitherto been directed to the case which is referred to in the question, but if a full statement of the facts is sent to me I will gladly look into them.