POSSESSION OF HOUSE

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 128, 16 June 1937, Page 14

POSSESSION OF HOUSE

■ ■ 9 Owner Secures Verdict Against Tenant WANTED FOR 0WN USE Judgment in favour of plaintiffi seeking possession of house was given by Mr. J. Miller, S.M., in a case heard in the Napier Magistrate'is Court yesterday in whieh Mrs. Ennna Elizabeth Latham, widow, of Napier, sought to recover possession of a house, No. 53 Shakespeare road, from the present tenant, Alexis Stanley Warwick, teacher of elocution. Mr. L. W. Willis appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. G. W. Nash for the defendant. It was admitted by the plaintiff that the Warwicks had been tenants of houses owned by her late husband or herself for seven years, that the rent had always been regularly paid, the houses kept in good order, and they had been good tenants. Since the earthquake of 1931, when she suffered cnjuries, her health had not been good, and she had been obliged to give up lteeping a boarding house, whieh she had been doing, and was now living in oue room in No. 55 Shakespeare road. She had recently sold this latter house, and part of her furniture was also sold. The purehaser of No. 55 had been very kind in letting her keep her furniiture there until it could be removed, but she could not trespass upon their kindness too long. Since selling No. 55, Shakespeare road, No. 53, occupied by Warwick, was the only house she owned. It was her intention to let part of the house and oecupy a portion herself and put her furniture in it. She purposed residing there at least for six months. She had no income, for the rent paid by Warwick covered onjy interest, rates and insurance. but if she was able toi oecupy her own house she was hopeful of securing the invalidity peusion. Notice Served. Notice to give up possession had been served on Warwick on February 15, 1937. This expired on March 15, but a further extension of one month.had then been granted and finally a further two weeks, to enable Warwick to obtain a suitable house. On May 11, as Warwick was- still apparently unable to secure a suitable house, instructions were given to plaintiff 's solicitors to take action to recover possession. Defendant, giving evidence, said that since receiving notice to give up possession he had constantly endeavoured to obtain a suitable house and was indeed anxious to do so. He had applied to every land agent, the building societies, solicitors and accountants, but so far had not been able to obtain a suitable house, though he had the first refusal of two houses whieh might suit and whieh might be available shortlyMr. Nateh, for defendant, submitted that the Fair Rent Act, under whieh the case had been brought, stipulated that for a landlord to obtain possession the premisee must be reasonably required for his own occupation as a dwelling house, and as Mrs. Latham admitted that she intended letting some ,of the rooms, this meant that tehe did not intend to occupy it -simply as a dwelling house, Provided For In Act. The Magistrate here pointed out that another clause of this Act, whieh was in no way in contraventdon of the clause ' quoted, made it clear that letting a portion of the house or of any unrequired rooms, was ©xpressly provided for and was permissible. In delivering his judgment his Worship said that it was an undoubted fact that houses of a suitable type were hard to get in Napier, but the defendant had been offered a house whieh, while not all that he desired, might, on the whole, be considered suitable. The defendant, had agreed to certain extensions of time whieh had been granted him, and in acquiescing in that concession he w»s to an extent bound by that. The case was one in whieh some hardship had to bo suffered by one side or the other. He could not enter altogether into this question of hardship; he merely pointed it out. The landlady had to make a living. She had given up keeping boarders owing to the state of her health, she had been obliged to sell one of her houses, and she reasonably required this house as a dwelling house. What she did with the house in the way of letting some portion o'f it did not matter, as long as she required the house as a dwelling for herself and so occupied it. Judgment would be for the plaintiff to have possession of the house in three weeks from date. Costs were allowed.