LEASE RENEWALS

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 261, 4 August 1928, Page 10

LEASE RENEWALS

BREACHES OF COVENANT

NEW PROPOSALS DEBATED

The proposals in the Property Law Amendment Bill providing relief to lessees against inequitable refusal of lessors- to grant a renewal.on the ground of breach of covenant, were debated in the House of Representatives last night. Moving the second reading of the Bill, the Attorney-General cited a case where a lessee who had £15,000 at stake, committed a slight breach of the covenant; and faced ■ the possibility of losing his interest in the land. Mr. T. M. Wilford (Hutt) asked the Minister to disclose the name of the lessee. The Minister said he would not like to do that, as the case was now before the Court. , x Mr. Speaker: I was not aware of that. ... It is my duty to point out that it is contrary to the rules of the House to discuss a case before the Court. However, it is a matter for members to decide whether this particular case should be discussed or not. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. H. E. Holland): I do not want to deal with the case mentioned by the Minister, but I do want to see this Bill referred to the Statutes Revision Committee. The Attorney-General explained that his reason for-citing a specific case of hardship was that he wanted to be quite candid with the House. He did not want it to be said when the legislation had been passed that members did not know what it was about. Mr. Wilford: You would not have offended any more if you had mentioned the name. _ Mr. Speaker: I take it that the House will refrain from mentioning the particular case. ’ _ ~ 1 The Leader of the-Opposition said that the general principle of the Bill seemed to be in the right direction. It was an extraordinary thing, however, that the Bill should be drawn up to meet a case which was before the Court. He expressed satisfaction that the Bill would be referred to the Statutes Revision Committee, as it would enable evidence to be heard regarding cases of hardship. Mr. Wilford said the proposed legislation was far too wide. The proposal in the Bill would enable people to go back any distance. He thought there should be some limit, Mr. J. Mason (Napier) said the details of ,the Bill could be discussed by .the Statute Revision Committee. He trusted the Bill would go through. It dealt with a hard case, and no doubt similar eases would arise in future. Mr. E. J. Howard (Christchurch South) said the Bill was an extraordinary one. It no doubt was in line with the Government’s ideas of making leasehold property unpopular. The Minister of Lands: Nonsense! It is just' the opposite. Mr. Howard : I hope the hon. member, is i-igh’t, but just at. the moment I am looking at the question from the landlord’s point of view. Mr. T. K. Sidey (Dunedin South) said thatlegislation enacted to nieeta specific case was always looked upon with suspicion; Mr. W. D. Lysnar (Gisborne) suggested that there was no genuine ground for regardingthe Bill with suspicion. It was on proper and fair lines. Mr. M. J. Savage (Auckland West) said the general principle was right, and he-thought members should stand by the Bill, as it gave security of tenure to the lease-holder. The only thing that might be questioned was the retrospective nature of the Bill. The Minister of Lands (Hon. A. D. McLeod) said the great difficulty of the Crown leaseholder was financing on the short leases.; It was a common thing to lin'd- -mature . leases for 21 years with right of renewal for a further term, and the payment of limited compensation' after that. The fear of leases being upset on mere technicalities was- causing a greater clamour than ever for the right to freehold.

Sir Apirana Ngata (Eastern Maori) said his concern was as to. the effect the Bill might have on Native leases, generally. Under one clause, there was no limit as to the amount of relief that could be given. He wanted to be placed in the position of informing his people that no injustice was being done them. He suggested a round-the-table conference of members of the Native Affairs CommitMr. H. G. Dickie (Batea) said he hoped the Bill 1 would be passed. It gave relief to the lessee without inflicting any hardship on the. lessor. . 1 " No' Injustice Intended. Replying to the debate, the AttorneyGeneral said there was no intention to do an injustice to anybody, and he thought the member for Eastern Maori need have no concern as to the effect the Bill might have on Native leases generally. It was not a question of taking away a man’s right, but a question of doing what was right, and paying compensation. He.did not think any exception could be taken to the principle of the Bill. He was prepared- to consider the point raised by Mr. Wilford that the legislation was too wide. The Bill was read a second time, and referred to the Statutes Revision Committee.