DISTRAINT FOR RENT.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 135, 9 June 1932, Page 3

DISTRAINT FOR RENT.

JUDGE QUOTES LAW ON SUBJECT. REMEDY FOR LANDLORD. Recently, in a. case heard in the Supreme Court, the law with regard to distraint for rent on the goods of a. company in liquidation was considered by Mr. Justice Ostler. Tn giving judgment in another case in Wellington yesterday, states the " Post," his Honor adverted to the views he had formed, which, in view of present-day conditions, are not without interest. In the previous case, said his Honor, ho held that if there was privity of estate or contract between tlie landlord and the company, then in the absence of any special equity in the landlord, he could not distrain on the company's goods for rent. His only remedy was to prove his claim in the winding-up. It was only where there was no privity of estate or contract between them, so that the landlord could not prove in the liquidation, that, notwithstanding the provisions of section 244 of the Companies Act of 1008, the Court would give leave to the landlord to distrain on the goods of the company for rent due by his tenant. An example of such a case was where the tenant had sub-let to a company the premises leased from the landlord, and tlxe company was in possession under its sub-tenancy.

In the present ease, continued his Honor, tliere was no special equity in tlio landlord and tliere was privity of contract between the landlord and the company. The landlord could prove in tlio liquidation for the rent due by virtue of the company's guarantee. Were it not therefore for the "fact that in this case the question was complicated by the existence of a mortgage debenture and the appointment of a receiver for the debenture-holders who had taken possession of all the company's assets, there was no doubt on the authorities that leave to distrain would not be granted.