RE FAIR RENTS ACT

Auckland Star, Volume LXXIV, Issue 32, 8 February 1943, Page 2

RE FAIR RENTS ACT

To condemn the Fair Rents Act wholly would be foolish, but it wants straightening up and a time limit fixed as to when an owner mayenter into possession of his place. Even a year would be acceptable to some owners. Your correspondent "Do You?" with two young children and a husband at the front, should not have to wait three years before getting possession. The Fair Rents Act was intended to prevent hardship, and this should apply equally to owner and tenant, otherwise you bring the Act into disrepute. Disputes under the Fair Rent Act should be decided by an arbitrator; I fail to see the need of Court proceedings. In reply to your correspondent, "Justice," as the rent has been agreed upon and the agreement signed by the tenant, I suggest taking it to the Fair Rents Deparment for their endorsement. This raises further argument, LANDLORD. "Auckland Builder" says that if a private builder built a four or fiveroomed house the rent would have to be at least £3 per week. Notwithstanding that he went after a section in Dominion Road which the local body considered not large enough for two houses, and would not issue a permit. Within a month the Government bought the section and put up two houses. This, in the writer's opinion, is not British fair play. Well, it is getting things done, and I would like to know if the rent is anything like £3 a week. W. PICKERING. j