Position Of Short Term Tenants
6 Oct 1937REVISION OF LAW IN REGARD TO COMPULSORY ACQUISITION FORECAST
SUGGESTED revision of the law in regard to the compulsory acquisition of houses, held under monthly and weekly tenancies, was foreshadowed by Mr. I. Rice, Corporation Law Agent. at a sworn inquiry into the Donore Avenue and Crumlin Road Compulsory Purchase Orders, held by Mr. E. O’Maie, assistant chief engineering inspector, Local Government Department, at the City Hall, yesterday.
The matter arose on an objection by two monthly tenants, Mrs. Susanne Fox and Mr. Thomas Byrne, 12 Dolphin’s Barn Street, to compulsory acquirement.
Mr. Brendan T. Walsh, solicitor, who appeared for the tenants, argued that despite the present position of the law, no compensation was provided for in the case of acquisition of the interest of a monthly tenant.
He submitted that his clients’ position was such as to justify them in law and in equity in claiming as much compensation as an ordinary leaseholder,. because as the law stood now his clients had the protection of the Rent Acts. In addition, there was the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1931, under which they would be entitled to even further protection after the expiration of a fixed period.
The net effect was that although from one point of view the law afforded them absolute security of tenure, when it came to compulsory acquisition, that security became valueless owing to the survival of the older law which regarded a- monthly tenant as having no valuable interest.
“FULL MARKET VALUE.”
Mr. Rice said that, unfortunately, they could not carry through these schemes without inconveniencing somebody. At present there was a friendly case stated, pending in the High Court, as to whether there was power given by those Acts to compensate weekly and monthly tenants. Nobody would be better pleased than the Corporation if there was power to compensate in those cases.
He would say, however, that suggestions had been put forward by him to the Department for the amendment of the law in that respect in the next Local Government Bill which they were bringing forward. When the Inquiry opened Mr. Rice stated that the Corporation was prepared to pay the full market value of the property which they proposed to acquire compulsorily.
LAUNDRY TO BE ACQUIRED?
Mr. J. A. Costello, S.C. (instructed by Messrs. Arthur O’ Hagan and Sons, solicitors), entered an objection on behalf of Mrs. Annie Day, whose premises at 74 Donore Avenue the Corporation propose to acquire. Mrs. Day, said Mr. Costello, had carried on for many years a successful business of dealing in and selling thoroughbred horses and polo ponies, and had a considerable trade with foreign Governments. The premises comprised 3 acres and were laid out with a track for training the horses and ponies. ¦The goodwill would be destroyed if the Corporation took the premises, and the compensation necessary would, in his opinion, render their scheme uneconomic. Mr. David Harvey, Mrs. Day’s son-in-law, gave evidence regarding the nature and extent of the business.
Mr. C. S. Campbell, S.C. (instructed by Mr. S. H. Watson, solicitor), objected on behalf of the Mirror Laundry, which it is proposed to acquire compulsorily. If they had to move to another centre there would be serious interference with the economic life of the city. Mr. N. Watson, Managing Director of the laundry, stated that he had considerably enlarged the premises at great expense since 1916. Of every pound they got from the public they had to spend 10/- in wages. The cost of moving the plant alone would be about £2,000. The most serious. loss would occur in the interval of leaving the present premises and moving to another site.Mr. M. O’Brien, Dublin Corporation Housing Committee Engineer, said that the Corporation were going to spend £250,000 developing the area, and if they left the laundry there it would foe an eyesore.
Mr. H. G. Simnis, Housing Architect, Dublin Corporation, said that the scheme was something more than a housing scheme. It contained many new features of modern town planning, including the widening of some existing roads. The Poddle river would probably be diverted. If they left the Mirror Laundry there it would be facing one of their new main roads. They were prepared to provide them with nearby alternative accommodation and they would not be asked to move for about two years, during which they could be preparing the new building.
Mr. Stanley A. Joyce, giving evidence in support of his objection to the acquisition of his dairy farm and house, said that, thanks to the present Government, the trade had come into its own for both master and man. Compensation would have to be on a much higher scale than if it had occurred a few years back. The Inquiry adjourned until 11 a.m. to-day.
View News Article Online