Consultation Paper on the General Law of the Landlord and Tenant

one confined to “interruption” of the tenant by the landlord andpersons claiming through the landlord (ie, deriving title from thelandlord). 18 The obligation under section 41, on the other hand,extends to “any person whomsoever”, which appears to expose thelandlord to liability for the actions of persons with whom no directdealings will have taken place, of whom the landlord may have noknowledge and over whom the landlord may have no control. 19 TheCommission is not convinced that such exposure is justified in anycase and finds it not surprising that this implied provision in section41 is invariably reduced by an express covenant in most leases. Thatcovenant usually confines the landlord’s obligation to not causingdisturbance or interruption by the landlord “or any person lawfullyclaiming through, under or in trust for him.” 20 This accords with themore limited covenant implied by statute on the assignment of anexisting lease. 21 The Commission provisionally recommends that inany replacement of section 41 of Deasy’s Act the provision for quietenjoyment should have the more limited scope invariably adopted inexpress covenants in leases.6.06 It would appear that the obligation that would be imposedby section 12(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Bill 2003 may have amore limited scope. It is confined to the “landlord” which undersection 5(1) means “the person for the time being entitled to receive(other than as agent for another person) the rent paid in respect of adwelling by the tenant thereof and, where the context so admits,includes a person who has ceased to be so entitled by reason of thetermination of the tenancy.” It may be argued that this provision isconfined to actions of disturbance or interruption by the landlord forthe time being only and does not extend to actions of others, whetheror not persons deriving title from the landlord. To a large extentmuch may depend on how the word “allow” is interpreted. 22 This1819202122Baynes & Co Ltd v Lloyd & Sons Ltd [1895] 2 QB 610; Jones v Lavington[1903] 1 KB 253.Ie not only predecessors in title but also third parties having no connectionhitherto with either the landlord or the tenant.See the precedents in Division L of Laffoy’s Irish ConveyancingPrecedents (Looseleaf Butterworths).In section 7 of the Conveyancing Act 1881: see Wylie Irish ConveyancingLaw (2 nd ed 1996) paragraph 21.23.See paragraph 6.04 above.96