VOL.
87
NO.
2
JULY/AUGUST 1993
all such elements, only those quintess-
ential parts peculiar to ground rents.
Nevertheless, the legislation will be
more easily assimilated if the evolu-
tion of the present system is reviewed,
however briefly and incompletely.
What therefore are the ground rent's
more characteristic rules, compliance
with which is required by this
involved legislation which, the writer
feels, is certain to remain relevant? To
enable a leaseholder to claim the fee
simple, or a reversionary lease, the
three conditions, for example, at s.
9(1 )(a), (b) and (c) of the 1978 (No. 2)
Act must be complied with. These
three conditions are entitled, as are
others, to be called "threshold"
conditions but including, for example,
as they do, the requirement that the
portion of the land not covered by the
permanent buildings be subsidiary and
ancillary to such buildings, a
requirement for new tenancies echoed
by s. 5(1 )(a)(ii) of the 1980 Act, the
writer feels that they are less
representative of the ground rent
legislation than the seven alternative
conditions in s. 10 and their
counterpart in s. 15 (as amended),
both of the 1978 (No. 2) Act, with one
of which "equities" the applicant must
comply. It is with these alone (and
then only with three of them) that this
short article will deal.
1. The Typical Building Lease
When it was at length decided to
provide a remedy for the fundamental
grievance of the ground lessee who on
the expiry of his lease was obliged to
surrender building as well as site to a
landlord whose predecessor had pro-
vided only the site, the Oireachtas did
not think, at first, in terms of giving
certain tenants the statutory right to
purchase the fee simple (enfranchise-
ment). Instead the first effective
attempt
9
to respond to this anomaly
was the creation by the 1931 Act of the
statutory reversionary lease. This
enabled any person holding land under
a building lease to obtain from the
landlord a 99 year lease at a low rent.
For the purposes of Part V of the 1931
Act which dealt with reversionary
leases s.46(l)(d) defined "building
lease" to mean a lease of land,
inter
228
alia
on which the permanent buildings ,
' were erected by the person who, at the
1
time of such erection, was entitled to
the lessee's interest under such lease.
In
Finn
.v.
Barry
it
was, however,
held by the Supreme Court that the
interest of a lessee did not commence
until the date of execution of the lease
and that, therefore, at the time the
houses were erected, the applicant was
not "entitled to the lessee's interest
under such lease." Accordingly,
s.46(l)(d) was amended so as to
include a lease of land,
inter alia,
on
which:
(d)
such permanent buildings were
erected by the person who, at the
time of such erection, was entitled to
the lessee's interest under such lease;
or were erected in pursuance of an
agreement for the grant of such lease
upon the erection of such permanent
buildings.
!
The paragraph so amended is now
j
represented by the almost identical
alternative condition 1 in s. 10 of the
j
1978 (No. 2) Act, with reference of
course not only to obtaining a
reversionary lease but also to the
'
acquisition of the fee simple.
2. Long Lease at a Low Rent
By 1954, when the Rents and
i
Leaseholds Commission issued its
report
12
the difficulties encountered in
proving who had erected the build-
ings, had made themselves felt. By the
time an application for a reversionary
lease was made, those who had
negotiated the lease or erected the
buildings were, in most cases, dead.
No information as to whether the
buildings existed at the time of the
lease could usually be gleaned from
the recitals or the parcels in the lease.
Where the buildings were erected in
pursuance of an agreement for a lease,
it was rare for the lease to recite the
I
previous agreement.
j
The Commission recommended
13
that, j
where a lease was for a term of not
less than 50 years, and the rent was
less than the earliest available rateable '
valuation of the plot together with the
buildings on it, it should be presumed
until the contrary was proved, that the
buildings were erected by the person
entitled to the lessee's interest under
the lease. In general, this was adopted
by the 1958 Act except in the case of
a lease granted before 1 January,
1914', when the rent had to be less
than three-fourths of the relevant RV.
Today, alternative condition 2
requires a lease for a term of not less
than 50 years where
the yearly r en t. . .is less than the
amount of the rateable valuation, and
. . . the permanent buildings on the
land demised by the lease were not
erected by the lessor or any superior
lessor or any of their predecessors in
title:
provided that it shall be presumed,
until the contrary is proved, that they
were not so erected.
Furthermore, the RV referred to in
condition 2 is not the earliest available
valuation but virtually the current RV
and this, if indeed it signifies nothing
else, is at least a convenience for the
practitioner.
3. The Yearly Tenant
The solicitor who is alert to avoid
steering his client towards a new
tenancy in case he may prove entitled
to acquire the fee will not be free to
relax if his client is not a leaseholder.
The 1964 Report of the Ground Rents
Commission spoke about the
representations that had been made to
them on behalf of certain houses in
provincial towns, adding:-
ln many towns these houses were
built by persons who held the land
on oral yearly tenancies. In other
towns the houses were built on what
may have been short term leases
originating upwards of 150 years
ago. If there were such leases the
terms have long since expired and no
evidence appears to have been
available as to the existence of the
leases. In both types of cases the
present occupiers pay a rent which
approximates to a ground rent.
Under the present law their interest
in the premises appears to be no
more than that of a person holding
under a yearly oral tenancy
14
.
This brief reference is intriguing and it