MOTION TO RAISE RENTS

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 122, 16 February 1921, Page 8

MOTION TO RAISE RENTS

FIRST CASES UNDER NEW ACT HOUSES ON THE COLLEGE RESERVE The first cases under tho new Housing Act allowing a landlord 7 per cent, on the net value of premises, besides rates, interest, etc., came lief ore Mr. F. K. Hunt, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday afternoon, when Mrs. Annie Deckston moved to have the rents of several tenants raised. The defendants were Mrs, Slines and Mrs. M'Enaney, tho former being the tenam' of 31 College Street, and the latter of 23 College Street (both represented by Mr. .1O’Donovan); and Mrs. Forbes, 36 Vivian Street, and Mrs. Townsend, 38 Vivian Street (for whom Mr. O. C. Mazengarb appeared). The four cases were taken together. Mr. P. Levi, who appeared for Mrs. Deckston, said that under the legislation in force prior to the passing of the Act of last year the landlord was restricted to 8 per cent, of tho value of the property in 1914. The properties in question 'here were part of tho College Reserve. The reserve was let to a building company which sublet the sections to tenants who built vhe houses. The tenants had leases for 42 years, and this original lease expired about 5 or 6 years ago. In* 1616 Mrs. Deckston obtained a lease of part of the property comprising eight houses. The houses were erected many years ago, and under her lease Mrs. Deckston was to pull them down within two years, but owing to the shortage of houses, she obtained nn extension of time, and she was permitted by the corpora'tion to do some repairs. Counsel gave details of expenditure on repairs and contended that Mrs. Deckston was entitled to an increase In the rentals. She was prepared to accept «£lO4 per annum in respect to Mrs. M'Enaney’s -house. Mr. O’Donovan, on behalf of his clients, said that the tenants maintained that no repairs had been made during their tenancy. The usual practice was to allow 21 per cent, to 3 per cent., on tho capital value for repairs. Mrs. Slines was paying 20s. per week, and Mrs. M'Enaney 275. 6d. per week. Mr. Mazengkrb stated that Mrs. Forbes was paying 275. and occupied 36 Vivian Street, and Mrs. Townsend paid 235. per week for part of the house 38 Vivian Street. . The other part of the house was let 'at 15s. per week to a married daughter of Mrs. Townsend, so that Mrs. Deckston was receiving 38s. per week for this house. Counsel also raid that he was in the dark and did not know What he had fo meet. The Act contemplated that the landlord and tenant should first have an opportunity of conferring and agreeing, but the tenants coidd not come to any agreement unless they were supplied with the figures which formed the basis of the mot'on now before the Court. He contended ’bat the capital value of Hie leasehold was the capital value of tho Ifwsee’s interest in tho leasehold. The Magistrate: Then if she ha J n short lease, her interest would be trifling and the rents would have -(-> be reduced" and t'he tenants would be reaping very great advantage. Mr. Mazengarb contended that the Ipecee’s interest only should Ire valued, and that 7 nor cent. reforest o» that should bo allowed. In the case of Mrs Townsend’s floiree, the capital ynb'C wns .81606. and if she had applied under the Act of 1616 she would have been entitled to 8 p“r cent., or about ,£3 per week. She did not make application, probably because she knew she could not get if. Mr. Teri contended that the value of the dwelling must be taken and not the lessee’s interest in it. They were for the time being owners of the dwelling and entitled to the full value. Tn respect to the house occupied bv Mrs. Slines. Mr. O'Donovan pointed that the tenant had teen in occupation for over ?t veers, and there wa« neither ga« not electric 'ight in the place The Magistrate fixed Mrs. Slinps'n rental nt 20-. ner week, the amount! sire was now navi ng.

ConridoTntion. of the other cn»ev was adjourned until Afareb 1. and in tb» meantime the Magistrate will examino the houses.