Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

LANDLORD & TENANT.

— DISPUTE OVER REBUILDING WORK (By Teleerajh—PfcEa Association.) Duncdin, Novombor 5. At the Supreme Court to-day Mr. Justice Williams Qieard argument, in tho case of the City Corporation' y. Mary Shalimar Bond and others, in which it was contended on behalf of plaintiffs that tlio full, rates should bo paid on a property in Princes Streetwhile defendants 1 view was that sis months' rates only were recoverable. The facts of-the ease aro that tho front wall of ail old building was stated .to be u&safe, and leaving tlie back portion, of tho 'building' alone the owners demolished tho front portion and rebuilt •it, leaving tho lack portion atone. It was arranged between the landlord and tenant that when the place was rebuilt a now lease should bo prepared. Mr. W. 0. Maogregor, for tho corporation, contended that- tlio _ promises did not come within t!ko Section 64 of the Rating A«t, 1908. Tlio buildings had not remained realty vacant ana unoccupied. The lessee did not pay for tho back building whilo operations were going oil; From M&rch> 1912. till April. 1913, the placo was in tho liands of tho contractors, so there was no tenant ill 1 occupation, and no rent bomg paid, but it was not a case m which the section applied, as it contemplated that thoro should bo an existing building, which' remained unoccupied for not less than six months, and tlion rooccupation of that building on expiration of tho vacancy. The fact that the owners remained in occupation by their /contractors meant that they remained in beneficial occupation. Mr Nichol, for defendants,, contended* that Section■ 64 had. been inserted for the purposo of removing a hardship and should have a literal construction placed upon it. If the owners had left the old building' Vacant for six months thoy would havo been entitled to exemption, but when %ir attention was drawn to tlio fact that tho buildmi, was unsafe they immediately commenced rebuilding. Mr. Nicl.ol contended that the section should bo ltbeiallj applied to cases of this kind. Tl» intention of the taken into consideration. His iionour intimated that ho would take time to consider liis decision.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19131106.2.51

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1899, 6 November 1913, Page 6

Word count
Tapeke kupu
360

LANDLORD & TENANT. Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1899, 6 November 1913, Page 6

LANDLORD & TENANT. Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1899, 6 November 1913, Page 6

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert