291 / 298
GAZETTE
Recent
Irish
Cases
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Constitution of Ireland — Constitu-
tionality of Part II and Park IV of the
Rent Restrictions Acts 1960-1967
questioned.
The Plaintiffs sought and obtained
Declarations in the High Court that
Parts II and IV of the Rent
Restrictions Act, 1960, were invalid
having regard to the provisions of the
Constitution. Appeals were brought
by the Attorney General to the
Supreme Court. In relation to Part
II, the basic rent of the majority of
controlled premises was the net rent
at which the premises were let on the
8 June 1966, which necessarily had
as its base the rent paid in 1914, or
the rent paid in 1941 depending on
the date of erection of the premises.
There was evidence in relation to the
Plaintiff's premises that the market
rent would be between 9 and 19
times the controlled rent. There
were now no provisions to enable the
basic rent to be reviewed. The
imposition of full responsibility for all
repairs (save those which are the
tenant's obligations
under his
agreement or Deasy's Act) further
accentuated the hardship caused to
landlords of controlled dwellings.
The Plaintiffs contended that
Articles 40 and 43 of the
Constitution read in the light of its
Preamble had been contravened. As
to the Preamble the Plaintiffs relied
on the following paragraph:—
"And seeking to promote the
common
good,
with
due
observance of Prudence, Justice
and Charity so that the dignity
and freedom of the individual may
be assured, true social order
attained, the unity of our country
restored and concord established
with other nations".
As to Article 40 they relied on the
following:—
"1. All citizens shall, as human
persons, be held equal before the
law.
This shall not be held to mean that
the State shall not in its
enactments have due regard to
differences of capacity, physical
and moral, and of social
functions".
3.1° The State guarantees in its
laws to respect, and, as far as
practicable, by its laws to defend
and vindicate the personal rights
of the citizen.
2° The State shall, in particular,
by its laws protect as best it may
from unjust attack and, in the case
of an injustice done, vindicate the
life, person, good name and
property rights of every citizen".
And they relied on the entire of
Article 43 which is in the following
terms:—
"1.1° The State acknowledges
that man, in virtue of his rational
being, has the natural right,
antecedent to positive law, to the
private ownership of external
goods.
2° The State accordingly
guarantees to pass no law
attempting to abolish the right to
private ownership or the general
right to transfer, bequeath, and
inherit property.
2.1° The State
recognises,
however, that the exercise of the
rights mentioned in the foregoing
provisions of this Article ought, in
civil society, to be regulated by the
principles of social justice.
2° The State, accordingly, may
as occasion requires delimit by law
the exercise of the said rights with
a view to reconcfling their exercise
with the exigencies of the common
good".
The Plaintiffs' arguments were
summarised as follows:—
For the Plaintiffs, it has been
submitted that they have been
denied the requirements of justice
and have been treated unequally
vis-a-vis other citizens who have
let uncontrolled property; that the
arbitrary and unfair restriction of
their letting rights constitute an
unjust attack on their property
rights; that the State has failed to
vindicate those rights; that the
restrictions imposed on their
property rights are not regulated
by any principle of social justice;
that the ddimination of those
rights is unrelated to the exigencies
of the common good; that if an
emergency or other temporary
basis for the impugned restrictions
existed at any stage, it has long
since passed; that the imposition
of those restrictions on houses and
flats
merely
because
they
happened to be built before 1941
and to have rateable valuations
below specified amounts, is
arbitrary, unjustifiably discrim-
inatory
and
not
required
by the common good, that such
control, regardless as it is of the
means of the tenant or the
hardship it may cause to the
landlord, is unjust and unfair,
particularly
because,
since
December 1972, the impugned
legislation has left no means of
reviewing basic rents once they
have been determined by the
courts; and that the State's failure
since 1971 to amend this
legislation and to redress the
Plaintiffs' grievances amounts to a
dereliction by the State of its duty
under Article 40, Section 3 to
protect them from unjust attack
and to vindicate their property
rights having regard to the
injustice that has been done to
them.
On behalf of the Attorney General
the case was made:—
That this legislation falls to be
examined for invalidity under
Article 43 of the Constitution; that
Section 2 of that Article provides
for the regulation and delimitation
of property rights according to the
principles of social justice and the
exigencies of the common good;
that what this impugned legislation
has done is justified by Section 2
of that Article and that,
accordingly, no question of non-
compliance with Article 40,
Section 3 arises; that the power of
regulating or delimiting the rights
of private property is vested in the
Oireachtas by Article 6 and that it
is to be presumed that in
exercising that power in relation to
Article 43, it acted
inter vires
and
with due regard to the directive
principles of social justice set out
in Article 45 which are not
cognisable in any court; that the
Court's power to condemn this
legislation under either Article 40
Section 3, or under Article 43,
cannot arise unless it is shown that
xxix