Preston and Area Rent Tribunal v Pickavance
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Porter,Lord Reid,Lord Tucker,Lord Asquith of Bishopstone |
| Judgment Date | 25 June 1953 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1953] UKHL J0625-2 |
| Court | House of Lords |
[1953] UKHL J0625-2
House of Lords
Lord Porter
Lord Oaksey
Lord Reid
Lord Tucker
Lord Asquith of Bishopstone
Upon Report from the Appellate Committee, to whom was referred the Cause Preston and Area Rent Tribunal against Pickavance, that the Committee had heard Counsel, as well on Tuesday the 14th, as on Wednesday the 15th, days of April last, upon the Petition and Appeal of the Preston and Area Rent Tribunal, of First Floor, Miller Arcade, Lancaster Road, Preston (who by Order of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice of the 5th of November 1952 were substituted for the St. Helens and Area Rent Tribunal originally parties to these proceedings), praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 15th of May 1952, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Order might be reversed, varied or altered, or that the Petitioners might have such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, might seem meet; as also upon the printed Case of Ethel Pickavance, lodged in answer to the said Appeal; and due consideration had this day of what was offered on either side in this Cause:
It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Court of Parliament of Her Majesty the Queen assembled, That the said Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 15th day of May 1952, complained of in the said Appeal, be, and the same is hereby, Reversed except as to Costs: And it is further Ordered, That the Order of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice of the 12th day of February 1952 be, and the same is hereby, Discharged : And it is also further Ordered, That the Cause be, and the same is hereby, remitted back to the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, to do therein as shall be just and consistent with this Judgment.
My Lords,
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal dismissing an appeal of the Appellants' predecessors, the St. Helens and Area Rent Tribunal, from a judgment of the Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division which ordered that directions given by that Rent Tribunal on the 7th September, 1951, and the 16th October, 1951, be removed into the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, and that thereupon those directions be quashed.
By an Order dated the 5th November, 1952, the present Appellants who now represent the former Rent Tribunal were substituted as a party in its place.
The question involved in this case concerns primarily section 5 of the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, and Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act, 1949. Their provisions are as follows:—
Section 5 of the Act of 1946 is in the following terms:—
" If, after a contract to which this Act applies has been referred to a tribunal by the lessee or by the local authority (either originally or for reconsideration), a notice to quit the premises to which the contract relates is served by the lessor on the lessee at any time before the decision of the tribunal is given or within three months thereafter, the notice shall not take effect before the expiration of the said three months:
Provided that—
( a) the tribunal may, if they think fit, direct that a shorter period shall be substituted for the said three months in the application of this section to the contract that is the subject of the reference ; and
( b) if the reference is withdrawn, the period during which the notice is not to take effect shall end on the expiration of seven days from the withdrawal of the reference."
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act, 1949 (hereinafter called "the Act of 1949") is in the following terms:—
"(1) Where a contract to which the Act of 1946 applies has been referred to a Tribunal under that Act, and the reference has not been withdrawn, the lessee may, at any time when a notice to quit has been served and the period at the end of which the notice takes effect (whether by virtue of the contract, of the Act of 1946 or of this section) has not expired, apply to the Tribunal for the extension of that period:
Provided that an application shall not be made under this section where the Tribunal have directed, under paragraph ( a) of the proviso to section five of the Act of 1946, that a shorter period shall be substituted for the period of three months specified in that section as the period before the end of which a notice to quit shall not have effect.
(2) On an application being made under this section—
( a) the notice to quit to which the application relates shall not, unless the application is withdrawn, have effect before the determination of the application:
( b) the Tribunal, after making such inquiry as they think fit, and giving to each party an opportunity of being heard, or, at his option, of submitting representations in writing, may direct that the notice to quit shall not have effect until the end of such period, not exceeding three months from the date at which the notice to quit would have effect apart from the direction, as may be specified in the direction ;
(c) if the Tribunal refuse a direction under this section, the notice to quit shall not have effect before the expiration of seven days from the determination of the application.
(3) On coming to a determination on an application under this section the Tribunal shall notify the parties of their determination.
(4) Where on an application under this section the Tribunal have refused a direction under subsection (2) thereof, no subsequent application under this section shall be made in relation to the same notice to quit.
(5) This section shall be construed as one with the Act of 1946, and references in this section to that Act shall be construed as references to that Act as extended by section seven of this Act."
The facts are not in dispute, and so far as material to be herein stated, are as follows:—
Ethel Pickavance is the owner of a dwellinghouse situate at and known as 51, Rodney Street, St. Helens, in the County of Lancaster, and on or about the 1st August, 1948, let it furnished to William John Leyland on a weekly tenancy at a rent of £1 per week.
On the 1st August, 1950, William John Leyland referred that contract to the St. Helens and Area Rent Tribunal under the provisions of section 2 of the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946. The Tribunal heard the parties and gave their decision on the 8th September, 1950. They approved the rent and did not reduce the statutory period of three months during which a notice to quit would not take effect.
On the 9th December, 1950, that is to say three months and one day after their decision, a Notice to Quit 51, Rodney Street, was served on William John Leyland to vacate by the 18th December, 1950.
On the same day that the Notice to Quit was served William John Leyland applied to the Rent Tribunal under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act, 1949, for an extension of the period at the end of which the Notice to Quit was to take effect and on the 19th January, 1951, the Rent Tribunal heard the application, granted the application and extended the period.
On the 6th March, 1951, before the extended period had expired, he again applied for a further extension and was granted an extension until the 16th June, 1951.
On the 4th June, 1951, a third application was made to the Rent Tribunal for a further extension and on the 7th September the Rent Tribunal extended the period until the 11th September, 1951.
Finally on the 9th September, 1951, a further application was made and on the 16th October, 1951, the Rent Tribunal directed that the period should be extended until the 11th December, 1951.
On the 7th December, 1951, pursuant to leave granted by a Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division, Ethel Pickavance applied by Notice of Motion dated the 10th January, 1952, to the Divisional Court for an Order of Certiorari to remove into the High Court and quash the two directions of the Rent Tribunal given respectively on the 7th September, 1951, and the 16th October, 1951. The application was heard on the 12th February, 1952, by a Divisional Court, which unanimously granted the Order of Certiorari and quashed the directions.
The St. Helens and Area Rent Tribunal thereupon appealed to the Court of Appeal and on the 15th May, 1952, that Court, Lord Justice Jenkins dissenting, gave Judgment dismissing the appeal with costs. Leave was given to the Rent Tribunal to lodge a Petition of Appeal to your Lordships' House upon condition that if successful they would not seek to disturb the Order as to costs in the Court of Appeal and would not ask for costs of the hearing before your Lordships.
Before the true construction of the relevant sections is discussed, it is, I think, desirable to bear in mind the exact position of the tenant at the time when the three months' protection given by the Act of 1946 came to an end. At that moment he was still in possession of the premises under his contract of tenancy and no application for an extension of time was then necessary. Indeed, subject to the possibility that notice might be given at some future date there was nothing of which to ask an extension. It would only be required if, as the Respondent asserts, the Tribunal had jurisdiction only to grant its first extension, provided application was made within the statutory three months.
It is in the light of these circumstances that the material sections of the two Acts have to be construed.
In this state of facts the tenant contends that his case plainly comes within the provisions of section 11 of the Act of 1949. His contract, he says, had been referred to a Tribunal and had not been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crowe v Lloyds British Testing Company Ltd
...and Valuation (Metropolis) Acts, 1869 to 1929, as the case may be". 12 As to the effect of this, reference may be made to Preston and Area Rent Tribunal v. Pickavance, 1953 Appeal Cases, at page 562. The Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act, 1949, provided by section 11(5) as follows: "Th......
- Ballantyne v Ballantyne and Another
-
Ballantyne v Ballantyne
...as one with the amended Act”. 8 In this regard I am mindful of Lord Tucker's observation in Preston Rent Tribunal v. Pickavance [1953] 2 All E R 438 at page 447 where he said — “The exact consequence of a provision that one Act is to be construed as one with another, beyond incorporating th......