THE HOUSING ACT.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17103, 26 March 1921, Page 4

THE HOUSING ACT.

MAGISTRATE FIXES A RENT. ' An interpretation of Section 17 of the Housing Aineiuiinent -Act, IStviU, which gives a, landlord tue -power to »PP'y to a magistrate ior uu increase of rent in cases whero the standard rent as defined in the War -.Legislation Amendment Act, 1916, is not suincicni' l-> lfctmu to the landlord 7 per cent, of thff capnat value of tiie dwchinghouse as on August Bid, 1914, was contained in a reserved juUoment delivered at the Magistrate's Court oa Xhuisday by Mr S. E. McUurtny, S.M. Hie decision arose out of an application, which was heard on the 10th inst., oy .0. K Otiey (iii M. J. Gresson) to increase the rent of a dwellinghouse occupied by a tenant, Timothy E. Brosnahan (Mr A. T. Donnelly) irom 17s to 28s 9d weekly. The Magistrate fixed the standard rent of the dwelling at £1 weekly. ' ~ . , • , ■ Xhe plaintiff landlord based his claim for an increase of rent on the fo.lowing grounds: —That in 1914 tho Government valuation of the dwellinghouse was £520, whereas now it was £800; that the present outgoings for rates were £4 6s lid and for insurance £1 2i. in all. £5 18s lid; that the average annual allowance for maintenance and depreciation was £32 12s. Tie first two items were ad- ' rnitted by the defendant, but the third one WB3 contested. Defendant contended that outgoings for repairs could not be founded on a mere estimate; details of actual expenditure could alone be relied on, and wjiere the landlord was asking for an increase of rent the burden of proof rested on him. jn the course of his decision Mr McCarthy said that in ascertaining the capital value of a house on August Brd, 1914, due regard had to be had not on'.y to the capital value in August, 1914, but the valuation at the time iof the, application. The meaning of subsection 2of Section 17' of the Housing Amendment Act 1920, was that in calculating the outgoings for rates, insurance, and repairs only actual expenditure was to be taken into account. In the Act of 1920 the income of 7 per cent, was referred to as net income. How, then, could that income be net income if the amount to be-allowed for repairs was to be a mere estimation of what were considered necessary repairs and not money actually spent? In the present case there was no proof that any repairs had been effected, so that the Court could not say_ what amount should be allowed 'for depreciation, which was fixed under the Act as such sum &3 could not be made good by repairs. The present capital value of the building as fixed by the Valuation Department was £BOO. In looking at both values it hid to be borne in -mind that for the most part Belling values exceeded the Government valuation. Whatthe Court had' to find by the aid of both valuations was the capital value as on August 3rd, .1914. which Mr McCarthy fixed at £650. Seven per cent, on this amount was £45 10s, to which had to be added £5 18s lid for rates and insurance. The totaf annual rental must therefore be £sl 8s lid, Toughly £1 per week, whicji he should fix as.the standard Tent for this dwelt in ghouri>. There was no jurisdiction to allow costs.

EiillllllllllllllllllUlllllliniUIIUilllllllllllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!IJII]|UlllllilUli!IUlU3