LANDLORDS’ HARDSHIPS

Dominion, Volume 15, Issue 75, 21 December 1921, Page 7

LANDLORDS’ HARDSHIPS

RETURNED SOLDIER TENANTS. Ejection of a returned soldier from a tenement is not permissible, even where it is shown that the hardships on the landlord far outweigh any difficulties that the ex-soldier may suffer. Illustrations of this were given in tho Magistrate’s Court yesterday.A widow with one child, after years of toil, purchased a property, paying .£2OO deposit. It was let to a man and his wife. Tho widow had since been ejected from tho house she was occupying, and was in rooms, for which she was paying .£3 per week.- Sho had also to pay interest on the mortgage of the property, and this exceeded by 10s. per week the amount of rent received from the defendant. 1 The latter, a returned soldier, said he had a wife and one child 18 months old, and he paid 20s. per week rental. Tho defendant did not pay his rent for a considerable time until the day before the hearing of the case. Mr. F. K. Hunt, S.M., who heard the case, said he sympathised with the widow, but he was hound by the statute. If he wero permitted to use his own discretion 'ho would order tho defendant [to give up possession. He agreed with counsel that the question of hardship ■ should be left to the discretion of Magistrates, and that tho -rental should be fixed by the Land Tax Department. As the defendant had not paid the rent when the summons was issued, judgment was given for the amount paid into Court, with costs. In another case the plaintiff was the owner of a house in Cardale Street, a married man with a. wife and four chib dren. Earlier in the year he bought a fish business from the wife of the de. fendant, and in order to get possession of the business he offered the woman his own house, not knowing at the time that she was the wife of a returned soldier. The plaintiff had since sold the fish business, and desired to recover possession of his house, but was unable to do bo, because of tho protection extended to returned soldiers. The defendant had one child, 18 months old; the rental was 30s. per week, and the defendant relet’some of the rooms at 17s. Cd. per week. The plaintiff was at present out of work, suffering from an injured arm. His furniture had Leon stored in Petone, and his wife and children were in rooms in another part of Petone. The plaintiff had offered to rent the rooms-that the defendant was letting at present, but this offer was declined. The Magistrate said that although the greater hardship was with the landlord, he could do nothing in the matter.