Supreme Court POSSESSION CLAIM

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28532, 11 March 1958, Page 8

Supreme Court POSSESSION CLAIM

Action Against Chinese

A claim for possession of premises used as a Chinese laundry at the triangle formed by the intersection of High and Manchester streets was heard in the Supreme Court yesterday before Mr Justice Adams. The claim was made by the Canterbury Terminating Building Society against Jim Lee, otherwise Nam Yee.

The plaintiffs sought possession of premises occupied by the defendant for occupation, demolition and reconstruction, claiming that the defendant had alternative accommodation in premises owned by him nearby. Arising out of this action and subject to the plaintiff’s claim succeeding', a claim by Nam Yee for possession of premises occupied by Frank W. Pankhurst (Mr R. A. Young) will be heard today. Mr P. H. T. Alpers, with him Mr R. S. Dacre appeared for the plaintiff. Nam Yee was represented by Mr B. S. McLoughlin. Purchased in 1956

Mr Alpers said that the building was purchased by the building society in July, 1956. One of the tenants, Nam Yee, had since then bought nearby premises, presumably for his own occupation. These premises were occupied by Phit-U Tailors Ltd. and the company proprietor, Pankhurst, was the tenant. In October, 1956, the building society gave Nam Yee notice to vacate, said Mr Alpers. Early last year offers of alternative accommodation were made by the society to Nam Yee. The society also wrote direct to Pankhurst with a view to finding accommodation so that Nam Yee could go into his own premises. In July, 1957, Nam Yee gave notice to Pankhurst to terminate his tenancy, said counsel. Actions were later taken by the building society against Nam Yee and by Nam Yee against Pankhurst. The society wanted the building occupied by Nam Yee for its own occupation, demolition and reconstruction.

Mr Alpers said that" the plaintiffs alleged that suitable alternative accommodation was available to Nam Yee in his own premises. Nam Yee had a ground for possession and was able to provide alternative accommodation for his own tenant, Pankhurst.

The defendant could not say he could not get possession until he had exhausted his attempts to do so, counsel said. The appropriate course was for the building society’s case to proceed to a certain stage and judgment should be reserved until the action between Nam Yee and Pankhurst was decided.