View report page

102
In the first case, taking section 28 of the Act of 1919, it will be noted that this
section is an amendment to an extension of sections 14 and 15 of the Act of 1909,
and these in turn are extensions of section 75 of the Housing Act of 1890. They
were commonly called the "implied contract" sections, and the procedure under
them was so cumbersome as to make them extremely difficult to put into operation
Thus, section 75 of the Act of 1890 provides that in any contract for the letting of a
house or part of a house at a rent in London not exceeding £20, there was an
implied condition that at the commencement of the holding the house was in all
respects reasonably fit for human habitation. By section 12 of the Act of 1903 this
condition takes effect notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, and such an
agreement would be void. The Act of 1909 by section 14 extends the provision of
section 75 to a rental of' £40 for houses in London and section 15 implies a condition
in the letting of such houses that the landlord shall throughout keep them in all
re»pects reasonably lit for human habitation.
Section 15 of the Act of 1909 empowers a local authority if it appears to them
that that the landlord does not keep the house lit for habitation, to require
necessary works to be executed by a notice served upon the laudlord. The landlord
then has the option to close the house, but if he does not inform the local authority
within a specified time that he has decided to close the house and fails to carry out
the works, the local authority may do the work themselves and recover from the
landlord in a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. The landlord has an appeal to the
Ministry both against the notice and the demand for recovery of expenses, but he
has no right of appeal to the Courts.
The Act of 1909 applied to house during human occupation, but the Act of 1919
now contains in section 28 a proviso for the repair of houses during human occupation
or not and this provision applies generally to houses suitable for occupation by the
working classes without any limitation as to rental or values whatever. If the owner
of such a house fails to put or keep it in all respects fit for occupation, the local
authority may serve notice upon him requiring him to execute the necessary works
forthwith. The owner is only given the option of closing the house for human
occupation if it is not capable of being rendered fit for human habitation. If he does
not comply with the Order the local authority may themselves do the work and
recover the co3t from him. Similarly, if the owner or anyone having an interest in
a lodging house or house divided into tenements for the working classes fails to
execute works required by the by-laws for such houses, the local authority may
themselves do the work and recover the cost.
I would point out that section 27 of the Act contains altogether a new departure
If a house exists which, owing to change in the neighbourhood cannot be let as a single
tenement, but can be readily let if divided into two or more tenements, not
necessarily for the working classes, and the provisions of the lease do not admit of
such conversion, then the local authority may seek from the County Court an order
for varying the conditions of the lease in order to allow the house to be converted.
Section 26 of the Act of 1919 is much simpler and places the onus of carrying
out the work on the person defined as the owner in the Public Health Act of 1875