NOTICE TO QUIT

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 24, 23 October 1918, Page 7

NOTICE TO QUIT

RELATIONS OF LANDLORD AND TENANT

WHAT THE LAW PROVIDES

The war legislation affecting the relations of landlord and tenant cnino Under review in a case at. the Magistrate's Court yesterday, when it was desired that ■Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., should mako •an order giving an owner possession M a dwelling which had been lot to a tenant tor a period of over twelve cnrS T„. V 1?, p J, aintilf w ™ Misg Mary Ann Elizabeth Cosgrave, who was represen ed by Mr. E. P. Bunny, and tho defendant, ihoiiias Bnen, clerk, of 32 Murphy Street, for whom Mr. A. H. Hindmarsh appeared- ■ fol ' tllß .P ki ««ff was-tliat she required the premises for her own occupation and thatshe bad dILZt not co to quit on September i Inst. Mi. Hindmarsk pointed out the dangeij?a!' Act bemg abused by landloi ds, who sometimes took advantage of l„LL XCep Y^-' to , llis PO'ssess tenants of bouses, which afterwards were let to other people at higher rentals. He in-' Si I *, \ C .K? vl } ich ™s lieard by Mr. Jtiddell a little while ago, and in which no hiMself was engaged as ono of the counsel. The house had been sold, and the vendor agreed- to get the tenant out lor-the purchaser. An agreement was put in as evidence. Mr, Riddell thought it was bone-fide, and made au-orfier lor ejectment on the. ground that tho place Jiad been sold and that the' purchaser wanted possession. "Immediately the parties got outside the Court flier do. strayed that agreement," said Mr. Him:-' marsh. . ,

■Mr. Riddell: If you can prove that tii.it was a iact you 'can teopen the

•Mr. Hindraarsh: It was told to mc bv •tho solicitor on tho other side, who wag disgusted with the- matter, but did not know any thing about it beforehand I ms also told about it by thh tenant. .A here people want to get tenants but they can always raise, some excuse, as they have the let before-them.. You .jlurald help us, and apply this legation in the war "that it is intenae? to be applied.'', ■■' , _Tn regard? to j the present 'case. 'Mr. ■Hindmarah said the plaintiff was a ladv «f some, means. Undoubtedly she could ret more rent for tho house occupied by the defendant; perhaps 2s. or 3* per

Mr! Bunny: She'denies that she wants to increase the rent. ' His Worship: She-said she wanted the nouse tor her own occupation Mr Hindmarsh said the Maeistraio Jiiitl discretionary powers 'in administer;|nff the provisions of (he.Act. W'we •he thought the relations should not be disturbed at the nresent time owin ff ti the difficulty of the situation/he need not make an order. His client had been in the house for n number of years and it was very hard for him to find another, placeDefendant Said he had been in the house between 12 and i 3 years. When ipliuntiff gave him notice to quit on September i he said it was nbsolufel.y'inv possible for him to get another place. If plaintiff could «et onb.' .for him he iwiiM willingly to out the followin? day. He had not refused to-..leave the place. Jie had applied to land agents and to Private;, fnetida, but could not find a suitable dwelling. When plaintiff called npOn him she said that owins? to'tilings being so,dear she,was finding conditions very hard, and desired to get into occuoatloh of her own house. His Worship pointed out that plaintiff could nbt .increase tho rent beyond 8 per cent, of the cabital value. Defendant said that ■ plaintiff had spoken, to his wife oil tho question of mcreasiug the rent, but in reply to Mr.' Bunny he stated that she had never i attempted to collect more than £1 per week.

Sirs. Ada Brien, wife of the defendant, stated that once Miss Cosgravo said she would have to raise the rent. That was four months ago. Witness replied that she was paying as imich rent as she could reasonably afford. Plaintiff stated that nfteOaying rates and insurance she only had left 10s..out'of the h. .Afterwards she'said shb "might want the house for herself, and later oh she served tho notice to quit. Mr. Bunny: Did sho'tell you that she wanted to live in the house herself?

AVithess: No. •'.... His AVor'ship-eaid it was admitted, and it was clear from tlio, evidenco that d.e- ; feiidant had been a good tenant, and paid his rent tegttlarly. • Plaintiff said Bhe wanted to occupy the house herself as it would be cheaper for her to do so' than to live outside. The provisions of. flip War Legislation 'Amendment Act applied more to the City of Wellington than to any other town or city in New Zealand. It was impossible to satisfy the 'demand for houses in Wellington.. Building had 'practically 'stopped, and there was only .'a lihiited nninber of houses available to meet the ■influx of 'population.. Tenants who were .in houses were, in a great number of cases, prepared to pay more rent than a house-'wit's rSally worth in order that they might merely remain in occupation. Section » of-the 'Act provided that no order for-ejectment should be made so long as the tenant continued to pay (he tent at th<* agreed rate, except where the tenant failed to fake reasonable care of the premises, or Jiad been guilty of conduct annoying to neighbours,' or where the owner.'reason-

ably required the premises for his own occupation, or some person in his cmploy. On the present ease, plaintiff relied on the clause providing that an order might bo made where the landlord required the premises for his or her own occupation. counsel had suggested that the Court should weigh the- considerations which affected the landlord as against those which affected the tonant. His Worship did not think that the Act intended to go so far a3 that. The Act merely stated that if a landlord reasonably required the occupation of liia or her own promises, then the Court, might grant an order. So far as he could see the plaintiff had made out a case. It was impossible for the Court to ignore the claim of the plaintiff. It was very hard upon defendant—it was hard upon any tenant to.be put out of premises that he had occupied for 6omo time, especially when he had paid-the rent'regularly. There were two .parties —the landlord .who wished occupation of his own'house and the tenant wbo was in a house owned by another, and who was paying- the rent for that house. "Itseems to me that the Act does not- go so far as the. argument ,'put forward by defendant's counsel," remarked His Worship. "Seeing that the defendant 'has been a long time inoccupation, and has been a good tenant, the. Court should take that into consideration in fixing the time within which lib should beaked to leave. I prouose to make tlio time considerable. I fix it at six weeks."