Rent reform extends hardship of owners

The contribution by Leslie F. Grech (Rent Reform: Breach Of Human Rights?, December 15) carries a lot of weight both on the subject of the rent increases according to the index of inflation and also on the subject of the lessor's expectation of regaining the possession of his property. These two points were mentioned in relation to residential property.

Personally I feel that the latter point raised is of much more consequence. The slight increase in rent, which in no way reflects actual values, is a feeble attempt to sugar the pill in favour of tenants. With regard to the length of the lease the contributor is very right in his projections. This means that the obnoxious law is being extended for a further 60 years. What present owners have been precluded from enjoying is now being extended not only to their children but in some cases also to their children's children.

As to commercial premises the position is different. Those leases, made prior to June 1, 1995, expiring into 2009, will have their original period of lease as established in the contract continue to apply. This means that if such a lease were made to end on any date after January 1, 2009 it will end on such date. If, however, such a lease ended before January 1, 2009, the owner would find himself saddled with a further period of 20 years lease.

The latter case is a great burden to the owner when the lease concerns property which is part of a larger property ripe for development. Admittedly one would say that a date has to be fixed. That is quite so but surely a formula could be found to alleviate hardship. An important consideration in this argument is the site of the property. A specialist shop, whether it is for particular brands or for some personal excellence in the trade of the tenant, could be easily relocated in other areas in order to free the property in favour of the landlord without resorting to the 20-year lease. The situation would be different in the case of shops which rely heavily on passing trade.

These are glaring examples of the extension of hardship against owners. Ironically, the "Objects and Reasons" of the Bill states in the first sentence: "The object of this Bill is to reform the rent laws in order to establish social justice with the owners of leased tenements". The italics are mine. Apparently there is a slip here as no mention is made of the lessees.