Power, Tenant; Prendergast, Landlord

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Land Commission (Ireland)
• Judgment Date: 27 January 1897
• Date: 27 January 1897

Power

Tenant

and

Prendergast

Landlord (1).

Land Com.

CASES

DETERMINED BY

THE QUEEN'S BENCH AND EXCHEQUER DIVISIONS

OF

THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND,

AND BY

THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION,

AND ON APPEAL THEREFROM IN

THE COURT OF APPEAL,

AND BY

THE COURT FOR CROWN CASES RESERVED.

1897.

Landlord and tenant — Fair rent — Urban holding — Municipal boundary — Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Vict. c. 47), ss. 3 (1), 5 (1) (a).

The fair rent of a holding, then about a quarter of a mile outside the municipal boundary of the City of Waterford, was fixed in 1882. On the 10th June, 1896, the County Court Judge fixed the fair rent for a second statutory term. In that year the municipal boundary was extended by Act of Parliament, so as to include the holding within the limits of the city. On appeal to the Land Commission:—

Held, that the mere inclusion of the holding within the municipal boundary did not exclude it from the fair rent provisions of the Land Law Acts; and, the Court being of opinion that there was nothing [distinguishing Perry v. Farley (1894, 2 1. R. 579)] in the appearance of the holding of an urban character, and that its physical character and user had not materially changed since the rent was first fixed;

Held, that a fair rent should be fixed for a second statutory term.

This case, heard at Waterford on the 20th January, 1897, now appeared in list for judgment (2). The judgment of Mr. Justice Bewley states the facts and legal questions involved.

Bewley, J.—

In this case an originating notice was served by the tenant of an application to the Civil Bill Court of the County Waterford to fix a fair rent for a second statutory term. The former judicial rent was £18 per annum, and, by an order dated the 10th June, 1896, the County Court Judge fixed the fair rent for the second statutory term at the annual sum of £14 10s.

An appeal having been taken by the landlords, it was contended on their behalf, at the hearing before us, that the holding was not agricultural or pastoral, or partly agricultural and partly pastoral, and, in the alternative, that the judicial rent fixed by the Civil Bill Court should be increased.

By virtue of the provisions of section 3, sub-section (1) of the Land Act of 1896 (59 & 60 Vict. c. 47), no objection to an application to fix a judicial rent for a second statutory term can be allowed which might have been, but was not taken upon the application to fix the judicial rent for the first statutory term, or...