Brophy Tenant; Barter, Landlord

Judgment Date25 October 1898
Date25 October 1898
CourtLand Commission (Ireland)



Land Com.

Landlord and tenant — Holding partly agricultural and partly non-agricultural — Subletting of the non-agricultural portion — Tenant in occupation of the agricultural portion —

Irwin v. Scanlan Unreported.

Norton v. M'Donnell ante 51, 71.

VOL. II.] QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION. 99 BROPHY, TENANT; BARTER, LANDLORD (1). Land Com. 1898. Landlord and tenant—Holding partly agricultural and partly non-agricultural July 11, 14. —Subletting of the non-agricultural portion—Tenant in occupation of the Oct. 25. agricultural portion—Right to a division of the holding under Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1896, sect. 5, sub-sect. 2. Where a holding is partly agricultural and partly non-agricultural, it is not necessary for the tenant, whether yearly tenant or leaseholder, who claims the benefit of the Land Law (Ir.) Act, 1896, s. 5, sub-s. 2, to prove that he is in bona fide occupation of the entire holding. It is sufficient if he proves that he is in bona fide occupation of the agricultural portion in respect of which he claims to have a fair rent fixed, and which is to be treated as a separate holding, provided such agricultural portion constitutes the substantial part of the holding. But where the non-agricultural part is the substantial part of the property (as the Court held to be the case in the present instance), the tenant is ex vi termini excluded from the benefit of the section. What is sufficient evidence upon this point considered. THIS appeal was heard at Cork. The facts of the case and the questions raised appear fully from the judgment of Meredith, J. Mr. Maurice Healy, solicitor, appeared for the tenant. Lawrence, for the landlord. MEREDITH, j. :— The originating notice was served in this case shortly after the Oct. 25. passing of the Land Act of 1896, viz. on the 28th of October, 1896. The notice states the particulars of the holding as follows : Area, 180 acres, statute ; rent, £75 ; Poor Law Valuation, £76 12s., and the application is made in the prescribed form to the following effect : I, the lessee, being in bona fide occupation of the above holding, apply to the Court for an order fixing the fair rent to be hereafter paid for the above holding, which is held under a lease bearing date the 24th of September, 1860, made by • (1) Before MEREDITH, J., and the Hon. GERALD FITZGERALD, Q.C.,Commr. 100 THE IRISH. REPORTS. [1899. Land Com. Thomas Barter to Andrew Brophy for the term of one hundred 1898. years, at the yearly rent of £75." BROPHY, The case in due course came on for hearing before a Sub Tenant ; BARTER, Commission Court, and on the 17th of July, 1897, an order was Landlord. made ascertaining the correct area of the holding at 93A. 2R. 30P., Meredith, J. held in severalty, together with the grazing of three-fourths unÂdivided of Carrigleigh Mountain (which appears to contain 108 acres), declaring that the lessee should be deemed a tenant of a present tenancy in the holding, pursuant to the Land Law (IreÂland) Act, 1887, and fixing the fair rent of the holding at £62 5s. In the Pink Schedule the gross fair rent is estimated at £156 2s. The striking contrast between the gross and net figures is accounted for by the fact that the holding embraces a considerable portion of the village of Iuchigeela in the Barony of West Muskerry and county of Cork. The Lake Hotel of Inchigeela, the Post Office, and several other more or less valuable buildings stand upon the holding. The particulars of the landlord's and tenant's improveÂments are stated in the Pink Schedule. The particulars in that schedule show that the Sub-Commission valued the land at £60 18s. and the buildings at £95 4s. per annum : total, £156 2s. Both landlord and tenant served notice of re-hearing, and the case was heard before Mr. Commissioner FitzGerald and myself at our last sitting in Cork. We have before us a report of our Court Valuers, the material figures in which are these :—Annual value of land, £57 17s. 3d. ; capital value of buildings, £1950. It will be observed that there is only a difference of about £3 between the valuation placed upon the land by the Sub-Commission and Court Valuers, but that the estimate of the capital value of the buildings made by the Court Valuers differs...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT