Eviction Notices To Residents

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32354, 21 July 1970, Page 6

Eviction Notices To Residents

Notices to leave their properties within a month have been sent to 80 residents of Stewart’s Gully.

The eviction notices were sent out by Stewart's Gully Holdings, Ltd, late last week because of the refusal of many of the 133 residents to sign new leases which should have come into effect on April 1 The residents objected to an additional charge under the new lease of $2B a year for maintenance and administration. At the end of August it was intended to begin proceedings in the Magistrate’s Court for the recovery of possession of the properties and the eviction of tenants, said the eviction notices. Mr R. H. Fulton, the owner of a house in Stewart’s Gully said yesterday that residents had refused on principle to sign the new leases and commit themselves to paying the extra charge for five years. “Absolutely nothing” had been done in the way of improvements at Stewart’s Gully, ind the company would do nothing, said Mr Fulton. The manager of Stewart s Gully Holdings, Ltd (Mr B Philbrick), would not comment yesterday but the company’s solicitor (Mr D. H. 0. Stringer) said the residents had been “screaming" for years that nothing had been done. Now an attempt was to be made with the maintenance charge—and this too was wrong. The company controlled about 50 acres, some freehold md some leased from the Railways Department and sublet. Expenses on the land and village were considerably more than income and the company was not able to do work that it would like to do, he said. Asked what would happen to tenants’ houses if they were evicted from the land, Mr Stringer said this was an interesting point. The previous lease said the tenant had the:

• right to remove improvements I i effected by himself, but un-l : der the new lease there was! f the right to remove any im- > provements. This meant the I houses could be removed. I The ground rental of the i leased properties in the gully • was previously $22, reducible! • to $l6 if paid within 14 days, i - and this had now been low] ered to $lB, reducible to $13.! ; Mr Stringer said the resi- . dents had been “squealing” . without sufficient reason. They . could have discussed the matI ter with Mr Philbrick but as I far as he knew none had seen him. The rent and $2B charge represented about 80c to 85c ’ extra a week to residents. ’ Residents had investigated 1 the possibility of buying the! ! land in the gully. The com- ' pany valued the land at $46,200 and did not want to I sell, but had offered it for $40,000. If residents signed the lease ' and paid the $2B charge, the matter would be settled, he i said. Several had signed yesterday.