DISPUTE ABOUT RENT.

Auckland Star, Volume LIX, Issue 254, 26 October 1928, Page 11

DISPUTE ABOUT RENT.

AMOUNT FIXED BY COUET.

Mr. E. C. Cutten, S3L, dealt with a case at the Magistrate's Court in which he had to assess the rent to be paid for a period for premises in Palmerstou Buildings. The plaintiff was j. Gardiner (Mr. Goldstine) and the defendant, Kretschmars, Ltd. (Mr. Totig). The claim was for £92 11/4.

The point in dispute was whether the rent was £4 per week for the whole period, or £4 per week for one month and £12 per week for the balance of the time. For plaintiff, itt was claimed -that defendant was allowed to occupy the premises at £4 per week until the owner (who was in Sydney) had been communicated with. Defendant was later notified that the owner wanted £12 per week. He continued to occupy the premises and paid £4 per week, for which credit was given, and the action was taken to recover the balance alleged to be due for the period after notice was given that the owner wanted £12 per week.

Mr. Cutten said the case was purely one fact. Defendant claimed that he took i the place at £4 per week, subject to one month's notice in the event of the landlord not agreeing to that figure. The landlord did not agree, but no formal notice to quit was given defendant, who remained in occupation of the premises and paid £4 per week. The facts did not, in his opinion, support defendant's contention that he was entitled to remain at £4 per week subject to one month's notice. There was, however, the fact to be considered that defendant did not agree to pay £12 per week. It was a big jump from £4 to £12 per week. Mr. Cutten said he decided to give judgment for plaintiff at a rental of £7 per week for eleven weeks and four days. After deducting the £4 per week paid by defendant, the judgment would be for £32 14/4 for plaintiff, with costs.