RENTS & HARDSHIPS

Dominion, Volume 26, Issue 32, 1 November 1932, Page 10

RENTS & HARDSHIPS

Case Against Eviction

MAGISTRATE’S VIEW Tenants and Possession Relationships between landlords and tenants, and particularly the oftendisputed right of possession, were dis cussed by Mr. W. H. Woodward S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday in delivering judgment in two tenemen. cases. The cases, he said, were unfortunately typical of many instances of hardship which have of late been constantly coming before the courts in Petone and Lower Hutt. An older for possession was made in each case, but it will be suspended “for such reasonable period as the necessities of the tenant seem to demand.” Plaintiff in the first case was the Public Trustee (Mr. P. B. Broad) and iu the second was the State Advances Superintendent (Mr. Kinpard). The defendants respectively were a labourer living in Petone and a fish curer and his wife, living at Lower Hutt. Mr. Stanhope Reid appeared_ for defendants. In each case plaintiff asked for an order for possession. The magistrate, in his judgment, said that the Petone defendant had been the tenant of the Public Trustee under a weekly tenancy which had been determined by notice to quit. But he had remained in possession. In the other case defendants were husband and wife, and were the mortgagors of the tenement, the mortgagee being the State Advances Superintendent. Defendants had made such default under the mortgage as entitled the Superintendent to the same remedies for obtaining possession as were given to a landlord against a lessee or tenant whose term was expired or whose rent was In nrrear. Notice of the intention of the Superintendent to exercise the powers of sale and of entry into possession had been given to defendants In May last as required by the Mortgagors’ 'Relief Act, 1931, but they had made no application for relief. At the hearing, plaintiffs had invoked Section 180 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act for the purpose of obtaining possession, and Mr. Reid, on behalf of defendants, had replied by saying in each case that the deplorable hardships which would be inflicted on them by the execution of a warrant for possession amounted, in the words of subsection (2) of Section 180, to “reasonable cause why possession should not be given.” The hardships arose in each case, he said, from the circumstances in 'which defendant found himself through no fault of his own and in (Spite of the forbearance of plaintiff. Circumstances of Cases. The magistrate said that as the eases were “unfortunately typical,” he thought it desirable to state the particulars in detail. Both defendants were relief workers. The Petone man had been tenant to the Public Trustee for four years and had paid rent in full up to August 17, 1931. He lost his employment in May, 1931, and from that time had earned on relief work an average of £l/8/1 each week, which was supplemented by rations.* Nevertheless he continued to pay rent at 22/6 up to August. From that date his payments fell to’l7/6. In April of the present year relief pay was fixed at 30/- a w.eek and rations were discontinued. The payments of 17/6 a week had been continued to date except for one week when he had to pay the unemployment levy and for two weeks since the issue of the summons, when he put aside his wages to cover the cost of moving and the first week’s regt of another house. He had dependent on him a wife and child aged five and had no income save relief wages and no assets save his furniture, valued at about £3O.

“He says,” the Magistrate continued, “he can no longer afford to pay 17/6, as the family’s clothes and bed-clothes are all worn out and they cannot continue to live and clothe themselves on 12/6. It is common knowledge in this locality that relief workers find great difficulty in renting houses. He says he has tried to find another but has found the rents more than he can honestly promise to pay or has met with a definite refusal to lot to a relief worker.” £4/15/- for 13 Persons. The circumstances of the other defendants were also described by the magistrate, who pointed out that in October last, when the case first came up for hearing, “there were 12 persons in the house to be kept, of whom eight had to be clothed also. The money available for this and to pay the rent was £3/10/- a week.” At that time 7/6 was being paid each week on an average on account of rent. The situation was tlie same now, except that the husband had returned to the house and was paying in his full relief wage of £2, giving a total income of £4/15/for 13 persons. “It cannot be denied,” said the magistrate, “that real hardship will be suffered by each of these defendants if orders for possession are made against them.”

The magistrate went ou to discuss the legal position, the arguments which had been submitted, and especially the import of the phrase, “reasonable cause,” mentioned above. His last citation was from a decision of Mr. Justice Talbot.

“His (Mr. Justice Talbot’s) judgment,” the magistrate concluded, “appears to bind one to hold that hardship to the tenant, even if accompanied by oppressive conduct on the landlord’s part, does not constitute good cause for refusing an order of possession. Apart therefore from the indication given by the repeal of the War legislation on the subject of hardship, I am bound to make the order.”