Consultation Paper on the General Law of the Landlord and Tenant
Consultation Paper on the General Law of the Landlord and Tenant
Consultation Paper on the General Law of the Landlord and Tenant
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
is sufficient. 32 It is questi<strong>on</strong>able whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>se sort <strong>of</strong> distincti<strong>on</strong>s arenecessary or appropriate <strong>and</strong> this c<strong>on</strong>firms <strong>the</strong> Commissi<strong>on</strong> in its viewthat rati<strong>on</strong>alisati<strong>on</strong> 33 is needed <strong>and</strong> <strong>on</strong>e comm<strong>on</strong> form <strong>of</strong> ejectmentshould replace all <strong>the</strong> current forms <strong>of</strong> ejectment. 34 To assist in itsdeliberati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>the</strong> Commissi<strong>on</strong> would welcome views <strong>on</strong> this matter.G Overholding15.08 As menti<strong>on</strong>ed in <strong>the</strong> previous paragraph this is <strong>the</strong> form <strong>of</strong>ejectment acti<strong>on</strong> most comm<strong>on</strong>ly used nowadays. There are,however, a couple <strong>of</strong> features worth menti<strong>on</strong>ing. One is that secti<strong>on</strong>76 <strong>of</strong> Deasy’s Act entitles <strong>the</strong> l<strong>and</strong>lord in cases <strong>of</strong> “wilful”overholding to claim “double” rent for <strong>the</strong> period <strong>of</strong> overholding. Itwould appear that this is rarely d<strong>on</strong>e nowadays <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Commissi<strong>on</strong>is not c<strong>on</strong>vinced that it is appropriate. The Commissi<strong>on</strong> provisi<strong>on</strong>allyrecommends that <strong>the</strong> provisi<strong>on</strong> for double rent in cases <strong>of</strong> “wilful”overholding in secti<strong>on</strong> 76 <strong>of</strong> Deasy’s Act should be removed.15.09 Secti<strong>on</strong> 77 <strong>of</strong> Deasy’s Act provides that an acti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>ejectment for overholding may include a claim for “mesne rates”, ie,damages for trespass arising from <strong>the</strong> wr<strong>on</strong>gful possessi<strong>on</strong>. It wouldappear that <strong>the</strong>se are recoverable from <strong>the</strong> date <strong>the</strong> l<strong>and</strong>lord dem<strong>and</strong>edpossessi<strong>on</strong> to <strong>the</strong> date <strong>the</strong> order for possessi<strong>on</strong> is executed. 35 Yet in<strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> an ejectment for n<strong>on</strong>-payment <strong>of</strong> rent apparently <strong>the</strong>l<strong>and</strong>lord can c<strong>on</strong>tinue to claim <strong>the</strong> rent until <strong>the</strong> date possessi<strong>on</strong> isobtained. This may be significant because <strong>the</strong> existing rent may bewell below <strong>the</strong> current market rent, whereas <strong>the</strong> tendency nowadays isfor mesne rates or pr<strong>of</strong>its to be based <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> current market rent ra<strong>the</strong>rthan <strong>the</strong> former rent. 36 The Commissi<strong>on</strong> inclines to <strong>the</strong> view that inall cases <strong>the</strong> l<strong>and</strong>lord should be entitled to rent <strong>on</strong>ly so l<strong>on</strong>g as <strong>the</strong>tenancy exists <strong>and</strong>, where a tenant wr<strong>on</strong>gfully fails to vacate <strong>the</strong>premises, mesne rates or pr<strong>of</strong>its based <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> going market rent should3233343536Wylie op cit paragraphs 27.13-14.Paragraph 15.01 above.Paragraph 15.04 above.Meares v Redm<strong>on</strong>d (1879) 4 LR Ir 533, 546 (per Palles CB). In anyreplacement legislati<strong>on</strong> technical expressi<strong>on</strong>s like “mesne rents” or “mesnepr<strong>of</strong>its” should be replaced by <strong>on</strong>es in plainer English, eg “damages”.Viscount Chelsea v Hutchins<strong>on</strong> [1994] 2 EGLR 61; Dean <strong>and</strong> Chapter <strong>of</strong>Canterbury Ca<strong>the</strong>dral v Whitbread plc [1995] 1 EGLR 82.184