CLAIM FOR POSSESSION.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXII, Issue 4323, 28 September 1921, Page 2

CLAIM FOR POSSESSION.

VBBOICT FOB PLAINTIFF. In the cas.e of J. Kennedy v. J. Bidois, heard at the Paeroa S.M. Court yesterday, the plaintiff asked for an order for possession. Mr Pprritt appeared for plaintiff and Mr J. F. Montague for the deflendant, John Kennedy, plaintiff in the case said he had been trying to gef possession of the premises for some considerable time past, but had been unable to dp so. To Mr Montague; Witness’ wife was the owner of the property, but lie always did the business, being the agent, as it were..

Mi- Montague asked for a nonsuit on the ground that the notice to quit was given by the agent and not the owner. There was no good reason put forward for why he should be given possession; there was no case of hardship; it. did not come under the section applying to returned soldiers or their dependants; no depreciation was alleged, and therefore there were no grounds for the action; Mr Porriit said the place was a boardinghouse, and did not come under the legislation applying to dwellinghouses, which his friend had been quoting. His Worship said Section 169 of tjie Act permitted either the landlord or his agent to enter a plaint. It was right to assume, therefore, that the agent in this .case had the right to give the notice. The place, however, came under the definition of a dwellinghcuse, under the War Regulations Act.

James Bidois’; defendant, in the case, tenant of the premises, said there were five people in the house. Plaintiff had told him that he was offered 32s 6d rent for the house; He had taken care of the premises.

To Mr Porritt: Witness denied that plaintiff had offered him other premises. He had asked him to give up possession and take rooms off the next tenant in the same building. There was only one stove in the house. He denied that plaintiff offered him a good building in the main street. He had not any boarders in the house. He occupied seven rooms, and there were five other’s : the building could do with, a coat of paint; there were seven large windows broken. Mr Porrifit said plaintiff offered defendant rooms in the same house, direct from him and not under a new tenant.

To Mr Montague : Plaintiff always called for his rent, and always got it. The ages pf the family were two, fourteen, and twenty.. His Worship said the War Legislation gave very wide discretion ; there was no particular hardship, -the family being grown up mainly ; defendant was living in a thirteen-roomed house, at a very low rent. Defendant was living practically rent free, and naturally wanted to continue in that happy position. He would give an order for possession within one month, the premises to be vacated by October 27.

Costs on .the lowest scale were allowed, totalling £1 6s.