Crippled Landlord Wins Tenancy Case

Chronicle (Levin), 3 June 1949, Page 3

Crippled Landlord Wins Tenancy Case

AUCKLAND, June 2. The possession of a house* in Park Avenue, Takapuna, where a naval petty officer, Thomas^Henry Morton, of H.M.S. Bellona, his wife and child have been living since July last, was granted the landlord, Mrs.'.Hannah Board,' in a reserved judgment issued today bj Mr. F. McCarthy, S.M. Making an order for immediate possession, Mr. McCarthy said no warrant would be issued for six weeks.' While it was true defendant had no place. to go and his wife was expecting a 'baby in September, the couple was young and no doubt the husband had opportunities to seek accommodation elsewhere. The Magistrate stressed the diffieulty the Court had in these days of an acute housing shortage, to determine relative hardship. The faets proved at last month's hearing (which was held in an ambulance outside the Magistrate 'h Court), were that plaintiff was bedridden — and had been for years — with rheumatoid arthritis. A dispute existed over the terms of the tenancy as to whether defendants were to provide plaintiff with meals and look after her. Nothing had been done in this respeet for many months past. Mr. McCarthy referred to set rules drawn up by defendant for the use of the kitchen. "The peremptory nature of this amazing document shows that defendant, as plaintiff claims, had little regard for the fact that plaintiff was a bedridden invalid, ' ' said the Magistrate. ' 1 The fact that a person in her state ot health, dependent entirely on the aid of others, should be tied down to the short periods he aliows to prepare, eook, consume and clean up after a meal, clearly shows that the whole arrangements for plaintiff 's care collapsed. The document concludes with the terse warning ' that any abuse of these times will lead to the subsequent alteration of them of a less generous nature'." The Magistrate added that he was satisfied tha»t hardship, in these particular circumstances, would be caused the landlord by a refusal to make an order and .would exceed the hardship which would be caused defendant.