A QUESTION OF TENANCY

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 205, 25 May 1921, Page 9

A QUESTION OF TENANCY

ALLEGED WRONGFUL REENTRY LITIGATION IN SUPREME COURT "Ho got the key when I was on holiday, and entered the house I rented from him,” complained a yjlaintiff in the Supreme Court yesterday, during the hearing of a civil action before Mr. Justice Hosking. He was complaining of an action to have been committed by 'the defendant, who owned the house in question. The case, an aftermath of a tenement action in the Magistrate's Court, was one in which Thomas Henry Tankard, motorman, sued John ..Thomas Twomey, cabinetmaker, for £250 damages arising out of alleged wrongful, re-entry into a house owned by tho defendant and occupied by the plaintiff. Mr. P. Jackson appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. H. H. Cornish for the defendant.

The statement of claim set out that the plaintiff had been for some time prior to February 8, 1921, the tenant at 134 Clyde Street, of a house owned by the defendant. It was alleged that on or about December 9 the defendant served the plaintiff with a notice to quit within one month, this following the refusal of the Magistrate’s Court to order the plaintiff to give up possession. The plaintiff further alleged that on February 8, 1921, during the temporary absence of the plaintiff and his family from tho house "the defendant trespassed upon the premises and forcibly re-entered thereon and wrongfully evicted the plaintiff therefrom, in breach and wilful disregard of the provisions for the protection of ten-a-nts contained in section 13 of the War Legislation and Statute Law Amendment Act 1918 as amended by section 56 of the’Housing Act, 1918.” It was further alleged that on March 3, 1921, the plaintiff asked tho defendant to reinstate him in possession, and was refused. In claiming damages the plaintiff alleged that he had suffered great lose, being unable to procure another house. . The statement of defence admitted the tenancy of the plaintiff, but denied that the plaintiff was a tenant "on or for some time prior to February 8. the defendant alleging that the plaintiff ceased to be his tenant on or about January 15, 1921. “Wilful disregard of the statutes in relation to the alleged trespass was denied by the defendant, vlio admitted that on February 8, 1921, as he was entitled by law to do,” he reentered the premises. The plaintiff was not then in possession. If ho were—which defendant denied—such possession was wrongful and without colour of right. After evidence had been heard His Honour reserved his decision.