FAIR RENT PROJECT.

Kaipara and Waitemata Echo, 6 April 1916, Page 3

FAIR RENT PROJECT.

SYDNEY STARTS OUT

The first case called in the newlyconstituted court in Sydney was heard last week. It was one in which the plaintiff, James Fingleton, M.L.A., applied for a reduction of the rent he paid (18s per week) for a 5-roomed house in Ruthven-street, Waverly, to the owner, William Donald. The plaintiff conducted his own case, and the defendant was represented by Mr E. Abigail.

William Donald said he was the owner of the house occupied by plaintiff. The present weekly rental was 18s per week. This had been increased during Mr Fingleton's tenancy, but was a fair rent for the house. The plaintiff paid no retes or taxes. The house was in good repair, and it contained five rooms in addition to the kitchen. It was built on a road frontage of 15ft. Witness had to pay Out in respect of this property water and sewerage rates (£1 16s 3d), municipal tax (£1 6s 3d), and fire insurance (6s 6d). In addition witness considered that the average cost for repairs over a period of five years would amount to £9 per annum. The plaintiff had been in occupation of the house about 10 years. Witness thought the property depreciated at the rate of 2^ per cent per annum.

John E. Ducker, property agent said he inspected the property of Mr Donald, who owned a number of houses in Ruthven Street. The house in which plaintiff resided was a first-class property in a good position. He considered £8 a foot would be a fair valuation of the land the house was built upon. The house would cost to build at the present time anything between £575 and £600.

Alfred Creed, tramway employee, deposed to having lived next door to the plaintiff for over 10 years. He had also been the tenant of the defendant during that period. Witness left No. 110 Ruthven Street last January. The two houses (Nos. 110 and 112) had only been painted once during the time he was in occupation. That was five or six years ago. The houses were not kept in good repair. The water came on the bed in the upstairs room when it rained. His piano and chairs had gone through the floor where the boards were rotten.

William H. Foggit, Government Architect, called by the Court, estimated the cost of erecting a house similar to that occupied by plaintiff at £450. Witness was at present erecting better hovses at Daceyville for £450. The ground frontage of the house occupied by plaintiff was only 13ft. The downstairs front room was only 9ft 6in between wallsThe other rooms measured 12ft by 9ft 6in, 13ft by 9ft 6in, lift by 7ft 3in, and the washhouse Bft by 9ft. Witness considered £145 would be a fair amount to set down against depreciation, and this being deducted from £450, he estimated value of building as it stood would be £305, To this might be added the land value, which he put down at £6 per foot frontage.

The Magistrate : In this case I am satisfied the result of Mr Foggitt's calculations are substantially correct, and on the evidence before the Court £6 10s per foot frontage would appear a reasonable price to place on the land. Thus, on this basis the cost of the house will be accepted at £450, with £145 allowance for depreciation, leaving £305. To this must be added the land value of £84 10s, on a £6 10s basis, making a total of £389 10s There have been no special oir^ cumstances put forward to induce the Court to take any other rate of interest as a recompense to the landlord for his investment than 6 per cent, the Commonwealth Bank rate. This represents £23 7s 4d. In regard to repairs and maintenance, the Court will allow £5 12s 6d, and £7 5s for depreciation in value. The landlord's outgoings will be accepted as rates £1 16s 3d, municipal tax £1 6s 3d, insurance 6s 6d, and 5 per cent for incidentals (£1 18s 4d), making in all £41 12s 3d. On these figures the rent would be 16s per week, and this the Court will fix for a period of 12 | months dating from February 21 I last.