DISPUTE AS TO RENT

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 293, 30 August 1918, Page 7

DISPUTE AS TO RENT

BUILDING USED AS RESIDENCE AND FACTORY CLAIM FOR ARREARS FAILS 'A case of interest to people who use portions of business premises as dwellingplaces was heard by Mr. W. G. Riddel!, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday, when Robert Hannah, boot manufacturer, of "Wellington, proceeded against Madamo Tutsehka, dressmaker, of 91a Cuba Street, on a claim for-£26, alleged to be due in regard to tho rental of four rooms from August 13,1917, to July 15, 1918. Mr. A. \V. Blair appeared for plaintiff and Mr. H. F. .O'leary for defendant;

Mr. Blair scid the premises wero used for business purposes, but defendant ocmipiwl them as a residence as well. They T/ere situated in Cuba Street, and the sito was very valuable. Defendant occupied tho Tipper portion of the building. Cortain repaid wero carried out by plaintiff, and a rearrangement was agreed to in regard to. the rent, which was raised to 30s. from £1 per week. Counsel suggested that if the landlord desired to charge rent at the rate of 8 per cent, on the valuation the rental would be much greater than what was asked.

Plaintiff stated in evidence that defendant occupied the top story of the building. Defendant said that if certain repairs were carried out she would pay more rent. Repairs costing £60 were carried out, and defendant agreed ito pay 30s. per week. That amount •was paid for a few weeks, but without notice defendant suddenly paid less. When asked to comply with the ar-l-aiigement she had entered into she referred plaintiff to the Inspector of Factories. Plaintiff estimated that an amount of £26 was owing. . To Mr. O'Leary: Defendant went into occupation of tho premises in February, 0916, whon the rent was £l-per weok. !A.t tho rate of £1 per. week she had paid up to date.' The claim was reaHy for the difference .between £1 and 30s. The repairs were carried out in July, 1917, and no pressure had been brought upon him by the Health Department; or.the Labour Departmcntto liavo the ■work done. No notice Was given "in "writing that the rent was to be increased. Plaintiff would not have carlied out the Repairs if defendant had jiob agreed to pay more rent. DefendJint ceased paying the 30s. in August, 1917. Tho lower portion of the prerois3s was let to a furnishing firm. It . was at defendant's suggestion that the Tent was increased.

Eeplying to Mr. Blair, plaintiff stated' that the building Was ah old one, and-, he had had no intention of carrying out repairs, as lie wanted to rebuild on the' site after tho war.

Mr.. submitted that the premises came within the provisions of tho War Legislation, Amendment Act, 1916, as a partioular portion of the place was used as a residence, and the rental did not exceed £104 per year. Under .Section 3 of the Act there could I>e no increase in rent, even if there :were an agreement, until the landlord gave tiventy-eight days' notice in writing of his intention to raise it. JLr. Blair said tho land upon which the premises stood was valued at £250 por foot, and the rent was quite' inadequate. If the rental lvere fixed at 8 por cent, tho weekly amount payable vqiiid be nearer £5 than 30s. Mr. Blair contended that the place was jiot a dwellinghouse, but a factory) as it had been registered as such. It was only incidental that defendant resided .there. The War Legislation Amendment Act did not ■ apply to faotories, tat only to dwellinghouses*. Sir. Ha'n3iah had no need to spend the moiiey on tho premises, which were intended to he pulled down, hut the expenditure was incurred in pursuance of special arrangements. There was nothing in ■the Act which prevented parties -making a mutual arrangement as to rent. Defendant stated that she entered into occupation of the premises on March 27, 1916. She lived on the premises, and used them as her dwellinghouse.. She had seven rooms, haying .bought out a Mrs. Barrett, and three of the rooms were eub-let. The relit nsked was £l-,per week, but she had refused to go.on paying it Until the roof was repaired. Repairs were effected) and plaintiff said that the Health iDapartmeat had informed him that he must repaper the "interior. Plaintiff esked her to pay 305., and she said she mould try , . -For tln-ee or four weeks sho continued to pay the 305., and then found that she was unable to keep on Idoing so. When plaintiff asked her to pay 30s. sho said sho did not think .she could do it, whereupon, plaintiff stated that unless she agreed he would not effect tho repairs, Before the repairs were carried out a returned _ soldier was taken ill on the premises, hnd Dr. Mackin, who was called in, said tho place was not fit for a dog to live

in. At the rate of £1 per wook slio ■was up to date with her rent. To Mi , . Blair: She did not employ any assistants, but the place had been registered as a factory in case she did employ labour. The 30s. rent was paid after the repairs were effected, but sho found that sho could not contimio the payments. Plaintiff did not ask her to quit, but certainly sho did receive notice in February last that unless the matter was settled within 48 hours a bailiff would be put in the premises and the lease determined. I\o action was taken, howover. His Worship said there was no doubt that the premisos used by tho defendant must bo classified as a dwellinghouse, to which' tho War Legislation Amendment Act applied. Ihe rent ■might have been more than the standard lent, and there was no evidence to show that 30s. was a proper rent which might bo charged by the plaintiff Whore a tenant was dissatisfied with the rent tho matter could bo adjusted, but rio steps had been taken in this direction by defeildaut. Neither had the landlord proved all that was necessary in order to recover the uioreased rental. Plaintiff would be nonsuited. As defendant had entered into an agreement, but failed to keep it; no costs would bo allowed.