The Gazette 1982

36 / 250

INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY OF IRELAND GAZETTE
Vol. 76, No. 2
In this issue . • .
Myths and Myth Conceptions about
Word Processing 37
Contractual and Statutory
Executive Editor: Mary Buckley
Editorial Board:Charles R. M. Meredith, Chairman
John F. Buckley
Gary Byrne
William Earley
Michael V. O'Mahony
Maxwell Sweeney
Advertising: Liam Ó hOisin, Telephone 305236
The views expressed in this publication, save where
other-wise indicated, are the views of the contributors
and not necessarily the views of the Council of the
Society.
Published at Blackhall Place, Dublin 7.
March 1982
Comment
The Rent Acts
The recent decision of the Supreme Court declaring
the provisions of the Housing (Private Rented Dwell-
ings) Bill 1981 to be unconstitutional is a mixed blessing.
While the extension of the uncertainty which both
landlords and tenants have faced since the Courts' earlier
decision striking down the Rent Restrictions Act is ob-
viously unsatisfactory, the opportunity which now arises
to bring in a more satisfactory bill should not be lost.
The temptation for the Government simply to exclude
the offending Section 9 of the 1981 Bill from a new
measure should be resisted. It must be said in passing
that the inclusion of Section 9 in the 1981 Bill was
somewhat optimistic since, in the words of the Minister
in the Seanad, it provided "an important subsidv for
tenants in the initial years of the new tenancy" - a sub-
sidy from the landlords, not from the State; an exten-
sion, indeed, of the kind of subsidy which had called the
constitutionality of the Rent Acts into question; a sub-
sidy, too, of little benefit for the tenant, being both
modest and short-term. The State must now face up to
a full subsidy to support such tenants as are unable to
pay a market rent, in line with the commitment given in
the Seanad by the Minister to "assistance for those peo-
ple who are in difficulty or on low incomes and who
find themselves in financial difficulty as a result of the
increase in rents." A number of the provisions of the
1981 Bill will need to be looked at before they are rein-
troduced.
Section 4 of the 1981 Bill gave the Court the power to
fix "the terms of every tenancy" but without giving any
guide lines to the Court as to what the terms of a tenan-
cy might be, other than as to rent. Some indication
might well be given as to the line which the Courts
should take on the liability for repair and insurance of
the dwelling.
It is not at all clear whether Section 5 of the 1981 Bill
confers a general right on both landlord and tenant to
reapply to the Court to vary the terms of a tenancy
where they have already been fixed by the Court, as op-
posed to a right to apply to the Court to have the rent
reviewed.
Should not the illegimate offspring of the tenant's
spouse (as well as such offspring of the tenant) be in-
cluded within the meaning of a "member of a family"?
The need for a careful review of the 1981 Bill is high-
lighted by the comment in the Supreme Court's judg-
ment that some of the provisions are "suprisingly
unclear". "The Court drew attention to the omission to
re-enact provisions equivalent to those in Sections 33,
34, 35 and 36 of the 1960 Act, which would appear to be
essential for the proper operation of any rent control
code." It is further hoped that any new Bill will not be
rushed through the Dail under the guillotine procedure
- as was the 1981 Bill. •
27