FAIR RENTS

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 5, Issue 24, 4 March 1942, Page 5

FAIR RENTS

LOCAL COURT ACTION

CASE FAILS

When Mr E. L. Walton, S.M., sat at the local court yesterday G. H. Mooigp brought an action under the Fair Rents Act against G. S. Whitesi'd'e, but the Magistrate dismissed the case on the grounds that the plaintiff had failed to prove that in 1936, when the Act came into force, the house was occupied' as a dwelling in the meaning under the Act. It had been established that the house was occupied only as an (adjunct to business premises. The Inspector of Factories, of Taivranga. gave evidence of the condition of the house stating that the dwelling was detached at. the rear of two shops in the main street of Taneatua. There were two shops with a right-of-way between and the house detached at the rear. The shops were unoccupied. The house consisted of a front room 14 feet by 9 feet opening on to a verandah, the room, containing an open fireplace. The verandah steps were badly broken away. One bedroom was H feet square and there was also another bedroom at the rear of the hoxibu of a smaller size. The kitchen Avas iV/o feet by 14% feet and it heate£ poorly from a coal range while the ceiling leaked.

Continuing he stated that there, were no sash cords to the 'windows. The lean-to scullery was unlined and the rain penetrated into the cupboards and sink. The bathroom was also unlined and was draughty, ■while the washliousc was in a very bad condition with the floor gone under the copper. The water tank was uncovered and the house spouting Jeaked.

The inspector stated that the rent was £1 Is per wcclt find the present tenant had been in occupation since .Tu'y. 1940. He continued to quote the valuations of the. whole section which included the two shops and stated that in 1936 Mr W. Smyth, tailor, had occupied one shop and the dwelling paying £9 per month.

When Mr 13. S. Bat ry, counsel for Mr Whiteside, rose the Magistrate stated that, he intended dismissing the case on the grounds outlined.

Mr Barry asked that costs be awarded the defendant stating that the Department, had been informed of the full facts and should have -quite easily investigated these and saved an action being brought.

The Magistrate refused to comply -with the request pointing out that the Department was performing i public duty.