Ripley, Tenant; MacNaghten, Landlord

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 06 June 1898
• Court: Land Commission (Ireland)

Ripley,

Tenant

and

MacNaghten,

Landlord (1).

Land Com.

CASES

DETERMINED BY

THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

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.

1899.

Landlord and tenant — Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1896, sect. 1, sub-sect. (1) (a) — Fair rent — Competitive value — Occupation interest.

The ascertainment of a fair rent under the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1896, sect. 1, sub-sect. (1) (a) should not proceed upon the basis that the holding is in the landlord's hands free from any tenancy and available for letting to a solvent and prudent tenant desirous of acquiring a permanent as distinguished from a temporary tenancy; inasmuch as the assumption that the holding is in the landlord's hands would necessarily involve the element of competitive value, which ought to be excluded in estimating a fair rent.

No deduction is to be made from such rent in respect of occupation interest.

This appeal was heard at Armagh. The question submitted to the Court for its consideration was, whether the annual sum

referred to in paragraph (a) of sect. 1, sub-sect. (1), of the Land Law (Ireland) Act of 1896, was the annual sum at which, after all the circumstances of the case, holding, and district, have been taken into consideration, the holding in the landlord's hands might reasonably be expected to let from year to year to a solvent and prudent tenant, who desired to derive a benefit from the occupation of the tenement and not from its sale; and whether the fair rent of the holding in paragraph (g) of the same sub-section (or the net fair rent), was the gross fair rent, less a reasonable annual allowance in respect of the sum which would represent the present value of the improvements.

Mr. Peel, solicitor, represented the tenant.

C. Murphy, for the landlord.

Meredith, J.:—

In this and other cases in the same estate, Mr. Murphy, as counsel on behalf of the landlord, contended that the principles upon which a fair rent should be fixed must have been disregarded by the Sub-Commissioners and the Court valuers alike. He argued that the evidence produced before us on behalf of the landlord demonstrated that consciously or unconsciously a deduction in respect of what is familiarly known as “occupation interest” had been made from the gross fair rent, and he urged that any such deduction was illegal and improper, and that it had been established by the cases of Markey v. Lord Gosford (1) and the Queen (Lord Gosford) v. The Irish Land Commission (2), that it was the duty of this Court when ascertaining (in accordance with the provisions of section 1, sub-sect. (1) (a), of the Land Act of 1896), “the annual sum which should be the fair rent of the holding, on the assumption that all the improvements thereon were made or acquired by the landlord,” to deal with the case upon the basis that the holding was in the landlord's hands, free from any tenancy and available for letting to a solvent and prudent tenant desirous of acquiring a permanent as distinguished from a mere temporary tenancy. The same proposition (more or less elaborated) was advanced for our

acceptance in the remaining appeals heard at Armagh (particularly in the case of Blair v. Lord Gosford (1)) and also at our sitting in Dublin, for the county of Louth. At the Dublin sitting, Mr. Donaldson as counsel for Mr. Ross L. Moore, the landlord and appellant in several cases, handed in at the close of his argument a document (in the form of a question) embodying in succinct form the contention he was instructed to urge. That document is as follows:—

“Whether the annual sum referred to in paragraph (a) of sect. 1, sub-sect. (1) of the Act of 1896, is the annual sum at which, after all the circumstances of the case, holding, and district, have been taken into consideration, the holding in the landlord's hands might reasonably be expected to let from year to year to a solvent and prudent tenant, who desired to derive a benefit from the occupation of the tenement and not from its sale, and whether the fair rent of the holding in paragraph (g) of the same section (or the net fair rent), is the gross fair rent, less...