The Gazette 1979

113 / 244

GAZETTE JULY-AUGUST 1979
Aspects of The Landlord and Tenant
(Amendment) Bill 1979
By John F. Buckley
The Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Bill 1979 ('the
Bill*) is, of course, as welcome as it is overdue. The Bill is
primarily intended to introduce, with modifications, the
major recommendations contained in the Report of the
Landlord and Tenant Commission (popularly and
properly referred to as 'the Conroy Commission', after its
Chairman, Mr. Justice Charles Conroy) published as long
ago as 1969 (PR 9685) and the remaining
recommendations (not already enacted) contained in the
Conroy Commission Report published in 1968 (PRL 59).
Before giving a summary of the principal and welcome
changes proposed by the Bill, reference must be made to
two proposals which in my view are unwelcome. The first
is the proposal to put the State into a better position than a
private individual where a commercial relationship of
landlord and tenant is involved and the second is the
proposal to interfere with the existing machinery of the
Landlord and Tenant Act 1931 ('the 1931 Act') in
particular cases where that machinery has already
commenced to operate.
First, Section 4 of the Bill provides that the Bill is not
to apply to the State in its capacity as Lessor. In a
number of decisions the Courts have held that where
premises were held under lease by the Commissioners of
Public Works and were occupied by another Government
department or semi-state body, there was no right to a
renewal under Part III of the 1931 Act. It would have
seemed reasonable, as has been done, to remedy this
situation by providing that the Commissioners of Public
Works would be entitled to renewals of Leases where
premises were actually occupied by Government
departments or semi-state bodies with the permission of
the Commissioners.
This exclusion of the State as a lessor from the
operation of the Bill seems highly unreasonable. It is not
easy to see why the State if it chooses to involve itself in
the letting of commercial properties in particular should
he in any better position than a private individual or
limited company engaging in such lettings. The effect of
this provision would be to deprive any person currently
holding under a lease from his existing inchoate rights
under the 1931 Act.
The second unwelcome proposal in my view is that
pontained in Section 29 of the Bill which has been
Imported word for word from the Section 39 of the 1931
Act and this must raise the query whether it was
automatically imported without considering its effect. The
existing Section 39 of the 1931 Act provided that where a
tenancy in a tenement terminated before the passing of the
1931 Act, but the tenant was still in occupation without a
new tenancy, even if a decree in ejectment had been made
against the tenant, that tenancy would for the purposes of
^ e 1931 Act be deemed to have terminated immediately
uftcr the passing of the 1931 Act and the 1931 Act would
pPply accordingly. Section 39 of the 1931 Act was
mtroduced at a time when there was no comprehensive
scheme of protection for tenants and it was probably
intended particularly to protect tenants on whom notices
to quit had been served in advance of the passing of the
193 1 Act by landlords who were aware of its proposed
provisions. No such situation currently exists. The effect
of Section 29 of the Bill appears to extend to cases where
a tenant whose term of years has expired has served a
Notice of Intention to Claim Relief uner the 1931 Act but
to whom a new tenancy has not yet been granted. Under
Section 29 of the Bill the tenancy which arose on the
termination of the old tenancy would be deemed to
terminate immediately on the coming into operation of the
Bill. The effect of this would be that the tenant would
have to serve a new notice of Intention to Claim Relief
and of course, his claim would come under the new Act
and not under the 1931 Act. This could only have the
effect of encouraging landlords to delay concluding a new
tenancy with any tenant who has already served a Notice
of Intention to Claim Relief in the hope that the
provisions of the Bill, when enacted, would be more
favourable to landlords.
The Bill also contains provisions in Part III relating to
reversionary leases. There appears to be a conflict
between Section 31 (4) and Section 34 (2) of the Bill in so
far as the commencement of the reversionary term is
concerned. If the matter is not dealt with by way of
amendment at a later stage in the Bill's passage through
the Dáil, presumably the latter Section will be the
governing one. A provision has been introduced in
Section 35 of the Bill providing for an abatement of the
rent reserved by a reversionary lease to take into account
improvements that may have been carried out by the
lessee and it appears to suggest some confusion of
thought on the part of the draftsmen. Such a provision is
naturally appropriate to the calculation of the rent of a
building but since a rent under a reversionary lease is
supposed to relate to the site value it is not clear why
improvements made by the lessee should be taken into
account.
The following is a summary of the other major changes
introduced by the Bill:
(1) The abolition of the artificial 'termination' of a
lease, introduced by Section 19 of the 1931 Act, and the
placing on the landlord of an obligation to serve a notice
of termination on the tenant (section 20).
(2) The abolition of the seven year qualification period
under Section 19(a) of the 1931 Act where the expired
tenancy was less than year to year. The tenant is to get
rights if he has used the premises for the whole of a three
year period next before termination for the purpose of
carrying on a business (Section 13).
(3) Where a tenant delays in bringing an application to
the Circuit Court to have the terms of a new lease
determined the landlord may now do this (Section
21(2)).
(4) There is a provision for application to the Circuit
115