NO ROOM

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIV, Issue 10285, 21 May 1919, Page 5

NO ROOM

HOUSING PROBLEM SCARCITY OF TENEMENTS IN WELLINGTON. The scarcity of houses in Wellington and suburbs is continually being brought under notice. Each civil clay at, the Magistrate's Court, tenement cases are set down for hearing. The difficulty of procuring houses is so acute that many persons have to be content with sharing small habitations with two or three otner families. Persons who are übie to pus down a small deposit purchase houses for themselves, and in consequence tflose occupying the premises are given notice to quit. The Uinicuities oi the man in possession are tnereby made manifest, as he is probably tillable to raise the sum required as a. deposit tor the purchase of a property tor his own and his iamily's requirements. As an outcome, the rentpayer, being unable to obtain another house, refuses to quit the premises he is in until compelled to do so by the court.

Every shelter that can be made use of as a habitation is in occupation, and the person who is looking for a nouse unless he is- extremely tortunate, may have to tramp many miles, and meet with many disappointments before he eventually securos a home for his family. During the' influenza epidemic, many instances of overcrowding were discovered, and the same- conditions obtain —perhaps in a. slightly lesser de-gree—to-day. A land agont stated yesterday that he collects rent for a tenement in Willis street where there is a flagrant case of overcrowding. The house in question, which contains sis rooms, is occupied by a man, his wife, and five children, while portions of the 'dwelling are sub-let to another man and his wife, and to a single man. Three children sleep in the pantry, and, on account of the War Regulations, the landlord has no power to act. The position has been reported to the civic authorities, the agent states, but it has not had the desired effect.

Yesterday two tenement cases were heard before Mr F. V. Frazer, S.M., in which owners of premises desired to get possession in order to occupy the places themselves. In one instance, a woman with a family had purchased a small dwelling with a shop attached in order that she might provide a homo for her family and utilise the shop as a means of obtaining a livelihood. The tenant, who occupies the premises, has been in possession for some years, and is a widower with a family. His notice to quit expired some time since, but being unable to get another house, he refused to budge. The owner stated she would be content with the shop (which, is not used) and an unoccupied room until such time as the man socured another house, but the tenant was not agreeable to the proposal. Finding that her small capital was dwindling away, the owner had no redress but to sue for possession, and she pleaded to the magistrate to let hex hare her property ait once. The magistrate said he did not like hearing tenement cases.; He was well «trire>'-"of the* 'difficulty in obtaining houses, and he was sorry for both parties. The tenant had been given full notice to quit, but the court in the ciroumstances, must give him a reasonable time to get out. He would be allowed three weeks. The second case was that of a fisherman, who resides at Island Bay. He is the father of nine children, the eldest of whom is 16 years of age and the youngest three'weeks.. The house in which he lives has. been sold over his head, and even if he was able to manage it, the securing of premises at any great distance . from his calling might prevent him from earning his Irving. Mr P. J. O'Regan, who appeared for the defendant, said his client paid his rent and his posrition was a hard one. The housing problem in Wellington was serious, and although the country was governed by the best brains of both parties, the difficulty had not been met. There was nothing detrimental to be said against the owner of the property desiring possession for his own occupation, but the position of the defendant was unfortunate. Counsel asked the court to adjourn, the case, to see if something could not be done. Mr T. W. Hislop, who appeared for the petitioner, said that the property had been purchased as an investment and was afterwards sold. The plaintiff bought it as a home, and was anxious to occupy the premises. He appreciated the position, however, and would agree to an adjournment to see what arrangement could be made between the parties.