FAIR RENTS

Evening Star, Issue 24330, 20 October 1942, Page 2

FAIR RENTS

AMENDING LEGISLATION ALL LIVING PREMISES EXCEPT HOTELS INCLUDED (Special.) WELLINGTON, Oct. 20. All premises used for living purposes except licensed hotels are brought within the scope of the fair rents legislation by an Amendment Bill introduced in the House of Representatives last night., The measure will operate for the dura- ' tion of the war and a year afterwards. The Bill also contains a number of other important clauses, including one making it an offence for a person to refuse to let a dwelling if it is intended that a child shall live there.

In explaining the measure, the At-torney-General, Mr Mason, said that rooms had been covered from the beginning of the legislation, but where attendance was provided the room was outside the scope of the legislation. Under the present Bill there was no reservation whatever, as all dwellings were covered. The former rent limitation ot £3 weekly disappeared. Referring to business premises, the Minister said that where they included living accommodation the legislation would operate. The Bill also corrected a position which arose when, through the letting of the major part of a house, the premises became legally business premises. The basis of fair rent, then, was that existing on September 1 of this year. This would operate unless altered by substituting a rent agreed upon between the parties, or with the concurrence of an inspector of factories, or as settled by a magistrate. An agreement between the parties could be reopened unless the inspetor of factoids had approved of it. this precaution being necessary to protect people who could not look after themselves.

Provision was being made, said the Minister, for the protection of sub-ten-ants where the landlord must have expected the premises to be sub-lot. The Bill stipulates that, whore original tenancy is determined, the sub-tenant shall be deemed to become the tenant on the same terms as he would have held from the original tenant. OFFENCE TO BAN CHILDREN. The clause in the Bill prohibiting refusal to let a dwelling bouse to an applicant with children is far-reachiitg in its- effect. This clause lays it down that it is an offence to refuse, or procure any person to refuse, to let a dwelling house to any person on the ground that it is intended that a child shall live in the bouse. A person may not instruct another person not to let, or state bis intention (by advertisement or otherwise) net to let a house, if it is intended that a child shall live in the house. It is also an offence fo inquire from any prospective tenant whether he has any children or whether it is intended that a child shall live in the house if it is let to that prospective tenant. In any prosecution taken under this section where it 1« proved that refusal has taken place the burden ot proving that the refusal was for some reason other than it was intended that a child should live in the house shall be on the defendant.