Housing : being the annotated texts of The Housing Act, 1957 and the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1958 / by J.D. James.

  • Great Britain
Date:
1958
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Housing : being the annotated texts of The Housing Act, 1957 and the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1958 / by J.D. James. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    73/596 (page 45)
    SECTION 6 The term implied by the present section extends only to the demised premises, and not to a common staircase (Dunster v. Hollis, [1918] 2 K.B. 795; 31 Digest (Repl.) 101, 2476), nor to incursions of rats from outside (Stanton v. Southwick, [1920] 2 K.B. 642; 31 Digest (Repl.) 198, 3303). For other cases decided under earlier Acts (before the changes made by the Act of 1954), see Jones v. Geen, [1925] 1 K.B. 659, per Salter, J., at 668; 31 Digest (Repl.) 343, 4748 (although this case should be read subject to Summers v. Salford Corporation, supra); and Daly v. Elstree Rural District Council, [1948] 2 All E.R. 13, C.A.; 2nd Digest Supp. Sub-s. (1). Contract ... for letting. Note that the term implied by sub-s. (2), supra, becomes a term of this contract, and consequently in Morgan’s case and McCarrickh’s case, cited in the General Note, supra, the courts felt able to imply a further term about notice of defects. As to contracts of employment of agricultural workmen, see s. 7, post. 31st July 1923. The/date of the passing of the Housing, etc., Act, 1923; s. Io (1) of that Act altered the rent limits from those specified in sub-s. (1) (a), supra, to those specified in sub-s. (1) (b), supra. House. For meaning, see sub-s. (4), supra, and s. 189 (1), post. ‘Rent. Rent means “ the whole contractual rent payable by the tenant to his land- lord ’’, cf. Palser v. Grinling, Property Holding Co., Lid. v. Mischeff, [1948] 1 All E.R. 1; [1948] A.C. 291; 31 Digest (Repl.) 651, 754r. No deduction is to be made for furniture, rates, etc. Thus when the rent paid to the landlord includes a sum for rates, that whole rent is the rent for the purposes of this section; see Rousou v. Photi (Gort Estates Co., Third Party), [1940] 2 All E.R. 528; [1940] 2 K.B. 379, C.A.; 31 Digest (Repl.) 199, 3310. The rent referred to is an annual rent. It seems that a rent of Io shillings a week exceeds £26 per annum; but see Whitcombe v. Pollock (1956), 106 L.J. 554 (Liver- pool Court of Passage), when a weekly rent was simply multiplied by 52. Administrative county of London; borough; urban district. See the notes to s. I, ante.) Last published census. See the Census Act, 1920, s. 4 (20 Halsbury’s Statutes (2nd Edn.) 1213). Reports on the census are prepared by the Registrar General, and published by H.M. Stationery Office. 6th July 1957. The date of commencement of the Rent Act, 1957 (103 Statutes SUPP. 75 137 Halsbury’ s Statutes (2nd Edn.) 550), which amended s. 2 of the 1936 Act (see the note “‘ History ’’’, supra) by increasing the rent limits from those specified in sub-s. (1) (b), supra, to those specified in sub-s. (1) (c), supra. Sub-s. (2). Subject to the provisions of this Act. See the proviso to this subsection, supra; and s. 29 (4), post (letting of house condemned and purchased under Part IT), s. 46 (5), post (letting of houses retained for temporary accommodation under Part III) and s. 48 (4), post (letting of similar unfit houses by local authority under Part III). Notwithstanding any stipulation to the contrary. This prevents ‘‘ contracting- out’”’ of the section. In Summers v. Salford Corporation, cited in the General Note, supra, Lord Wright said: ‘“‘ The subsection must . . . be construed with due regard to its apparent object, and to the character of the legislation to which it belongs. The provision was to reduce the evils of bad housing accommodation and to protect working people by a compulsory provision, out of which they cannot contract, against accepting improper conditions.’’ See also Jones v. Geen, [1925] 1 K.B. 659; 31 Digest (Repl.) 343, 4748. This provision would appear to be unaffected by s. 33 (2), post. Condition. The word “ condition ’’ is not used in any technical sense; see Walker v. Hobbs & Co., and Summers v. Salford Corporation, cited in the General Note, supra. Undertaking. The undertaking that the house will be kept fit by the landlord during the tenancy takes the form of an implied term of the tenancy. Thus only the tenant may sue for a breach (see, however, the Occupiers’ Liability Act, 1957, s. 4), and the courts have implied a further term that the landlord’s liability, at least for patent defects, arises only when he has notice; see cases cited in the general Note, supra. By the landlord. As to “landlord ”’ see sub-s. (4), supra, and note thereto, infra. During the tenancy. As to statutory tenancies, see the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920, s. 15 (1) (103 Statutes Supp. 148; 13 Hals- bury’s Statutes (2nd Edn.) 1017). See also Stvood Estates Co., Lid. v. Gregory, [1936] 2 K.B. 605, perv Sir Boyd Merriman, P. (affirmed on other grounds, [1937] 3 All E.R. 656; [1938] A.C. 118; 31 Digest (Repl.) 667, 7660). The remarks of Sir Boyd Merriman doubting the applicability of this section to such “ tenancies ’’, appear to overlook the effect of s. 15 (1) of the Act of 1920 cited supra, and are not consistent with Morgan’s case and McCarrick’s case, cited in the General Note, supra. In John Waterer, Sons & Crisp, Ltd. v. Huggins (1931), 47 T.L.R. 305; 31 Digest (Repl.) 618, 7336, damages were assessed without regard to the security of tenure which the protection of the eae Acts would have conferred; sed quaere.