[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] Slit, — In the Spectator . of
November 22nd you suggest that when any. dwelling is declared to be unfit for human habitation the rents should automatically cease with a view to its being demolished. I venture to add that such a provision might well receive statutory sanction whether it is intended to pull down the dwelling or not.
In London and sonic large towns many small dwellings are held on the leasehold system, under which the ground landlord leases the land to a builder for a long term of years, the builder erects the dwelling and probably underlets it for a long term to an under lessee, who may in his turn sub-underlet it for, say, twenty-one years, to a sub-under-lessee, who either occupies the house himself or lets it out in separate tenements for occupation. The lease and the under-leases each provide that the obligation to keep the premises in repair shall fall on him who takes the lease or under-lease.
If the Act of Parliament were to provide that on the dwelling being pronounced unfit for habitation all rents should cease until the defects were made good, it would be to the interest of all persons entitled to receive rent to see that such a state of things should not arise ; the ground landlord would put pressure on his lessee, the lessee on his under-lessee, and so on until the actual occupier was reached. There would have to be some provision to guard against the occupier doing wilful damage to the property with a view to avoiding payment of his rent. I would further suggest that it is desirable to alter the present rule of law that on the letting of an unfurnished house there is no implied warranty that it is fit for human habitation. The mere statement of the rule would seem to be sufficient argument for its alteration. I believe that the two alterations in the law above suggested would have a great influence in im- proving the condition of the slums in our great cities.— I am, Sir, &c., STEWART JOBSON. The Hayne, Seaton, Devon.
Previous page
