RENTED HOUSES

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 213, 3 June 1920, Page 6

RENTED HOUSES

PROTECTION FOR SOLDIERS

"A VERITABLE GODSEND"

The conference of the Js T ew Zealand Returned Soldiers' Association yesterday affirmed the principle that returned moil should be given protection against ejectment from rented dwellings for a further pericd ,of twelve months. The Christohurch branch submitted the following remit on the matter, and its adoption was recommended by tho Land Committee:— "That in view of the acute shortage of houses, this conference urges tho Government to continue the protection given to returned soldiere by tho War Regulations Act nf 1914 against ejection fiom rented dwellings for a further period of twelve months as from August 2 iioxt.' Mr. W. Perry (Wellington) said there was a great feeling against protection being extended to returned soldiers, which found its expression amongst land agents And landlord. They all knew how ucute tho house shortage was, and from his own knowledge lie wished to stato that every Thursday morning the business of the Wellington Magistrate's Court was taken up with tenement cases. He submitted that instead of soldiers being protected for a period of twelve months, they should be protected So long as the house shortage existed. "If there is any individual in this country who ought to have a roof over his head, and who is entitled not to 'be ejected from ill's house so long as lie pays the rent and does not knock the house about, surely it is the returned soldier who, during the last four or five years, has been standing up to his knees in mud in the trenches while the owners of tho houses were lying in bed," declared Mr. Perry, amidst cipplfiusc. Mr. W. E. Ixwdley (Ohnstcliurch) remarked that since the principle had been put on tho Statute Book protection to soldiers had been a bugbear to land agents and landlords, but to tlie majority of returned soldiors throughout the country it had been a veritable godsend. He hoped tho confercnco would realise the importance of tho remit, and see that it was put through in no uncertain voice, no knew of ft case where ft man who left a wife and children behind when ho went to the war returned to find that his home was without gas and water. About six months before the man returned his wife was told to ouit Uio house, which had been sold ever her head. The landlord said that unless she got out within a certain time he would have the gas.and water cut off. This threat was carried out. Mr. Loadley said ho interviewed the landlord, anil told him that unless the gas and water were laid on again immediately the whole case would be published in tho Press, and tho result was that next day the gas and water were reinstated. 'J his was one instance which proved that protection was necessary to prevent returned men from being "bluffed" out of giving up their houses. ' \ ' The liev, W. Walker (Christohurch), in supporting tho remit, mentioned the case of a CJiristchurch woman whoso husband was in hospital awaiting nil cperation. This woman had been ordered to leave her house by the Court, the ground of the landlord's application being that the premises had not been kept in proper repair—all that she had omitted to do mas to keep the gividon in order! Mr. D. S. Smith (Gore) opposed Hie remit, becauso he thought that returned soldiers might, have nn unfair advantage over civilians. After all. returned soldiers woro now civilians, and they could lie ejected now if they failed to pay rent, committed a nuisance to neighbours, or allowed their houses to fall into disrepair. Tho remit was carried.