HOME LIFE OF HINDUS

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 301, 14 September 1921, Page 9

HOME LIFE OF HINDUS

FOURTEEN IN A. TENEMENT. Mr. El. Page , S.M., yesterday heard the case of Vitholoes Nagandas Mapara. fruit hawker (Mr. .1. S. Hanna), who proceeded against Nana Bhana and Walla Bhana (Mr. A. B» Sievwright) for possession of a house, No. 25 Frederick Street, and for arrears of rent said .to be.due. Mr. Hanna said that plaintiff’s tenancy commenced early in 1919, and in the middle of that year he allowed several of his countrymen (Hindus) to live there, as; they were unable to got accommodation elsewhere. When rent day arrived Alapara made a levy on his guests to make up |he amount of the rental. Later in the year quite a number of other Hindus took 'up their residence nt the house without the plaintiff’s permission or invitation. There were three rooms' in tho house besides a kitchen, and this year there were as many as 20 persons residing in it. There were no real beds in the house, and most of tho Hindus slept on the floor. In view of this, plaintiff decided to put an end to such an undesirable state of affairs, and told a number of them to quit, but they declined to do so. Eventually the city sanitary inspector was called in, and he gave instructions that some of them must go. This annoyed some of the Hindus, and the plaintiff became afraid to remain, and found lodging in another house in the same street. Tho plaintiff was thus practically bumped out of his house, and the defendants and the others who were intruders were now in possession. A claim for JIB Bs. back rent had been met, but plaintiff was claiming damages because of being obliged to find lodgings, also for storage charges which he had to pay. The plaintiff wrote to the defendants stating that ho intended to take legal proceedings, which would be expensive, and that they wcmld have to pay. The plaintiff stated in evidence that on June 18 or 19, there were 21 men in the house; seven slept on bedsteads, and tho remainder on the floor. He thought the conditions were unhealthy, and called in the city sanitary inspector. When tho latter visited the house tho men rushed out, some of them using threatening language towards him, and'he woe afraid to go back to the house. PJaintiff added that there were now 14 rhon in the place. • In answer to Mr. Sievwright, tho witness said he was not a moneylender. When ho lent money to his countrymen now, ho did not charge interest. Hq objected to tho others because they were of a different caste. Most of them had como from the same village as himself. Stephen G. Watson, sanitary inspector, ■ stated that the by-laws stipulated that each axlult should have 500 cubic feet of air space. .It was no use turning the people cut of houses, as they would have to camp in tho street. Mr. Sievwright ‘contended that the defendants were not sub-tenants of the plaintiff, who was merely an agent to whom they paid their share of the rent The Magistrate remarked on tho desirability of tei-minating the state of affairs disclosed by tho evidence, but, said he could not hold that the plaintiff was the landlord. He contributed an equal eliaro with the others towards the rent, judgment was entered for defendants with costs.