HOUSING LAW

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 182, 30 April 1936, Page 13

HOUSING LAW

War Legislation Still Applies DECISION BY COURT Restricting Orders For Possession A successful application itiidei' the Rent Restriction Act. 1926. as amended by tlie 11'27 Act. to reapply Hie provisions of part one of tlie War Legis ation Act, 1916. and its amendments, restricting orders for possession, was made in the Magistrate’s Court, Wellington, vesterday by a tenant in answer to an application by his landlord, following Hie expiry ot notice to quit a house, for an order for the immediate possession of the premises. A summons had been issued claiming possession, and under the usual law relating to property a magistrate would have no option but to make an order The defence in yesterday’s case, invoking tlie provisions of amendments to the War Legislation Act, was an unusual one, and counsel for defendant said it was, so far as he knew, the first application of its kind for some (tlie landlord). Walter John Queree, settler, of Wellington, asked for an order for possession ot premises at 23 Austin Street, Wellington defendant being the tenant, Edward John Francis Quinn, civil servant, of Wellington. Mr. 11. 1?. Lawry, S.M.. was on the bench. Mr. D. W. Virtue appeared for Queree ami Mr. A J. Mazengarb for Quinn. ■ Plaintiff stated notice given to Quinn to quit had expired in March and defendant had neglected or refused to do so. Mr. Mazengarb, in reply, moved a notice of motion on behalf of the tenant of tlie house to which part one of the War Legislation Act, 1916, and its amendments were applicable immediately before August 1, 1927, for an order declaring that that part of the Act, as amended by the Rent Restriction Act, 1926, be reapplied to a dwelliugliouso.

First Application For Years. “There seems to be no answer to the summons for possession, the notice to quit having expired, unless the provisions of the War Legislation Amendment Act, 1916, are applicable,” said Mr. Mazengarb. “This is the first application under tins Act, as far as I am aware, for some years.” Tlie housing shortage in Wellington had been extremely acute, following the war, and that had given rise to this legislation, he said. There appeared extreme acuteness in the position again to-day. In the court on Tuesday no fewer than seven claims for possession were made, and in every case the tenant had paid the rent regularly up to the date of notice to quit. Each was merely a case of tlie landlord wanting the house. “My client relies on Hie contract he made to pay 37/6 a week rent.’ Mr. Mazengarb continued. “lie says, ‘I have kept my part of Hie bargain and tlie only protection 1 want under this Act is against recovery of possession.’ ” Mr. Virtue said Hie tenant started to make unreasonable demands of the landlord for repairs. The contractor had said that the only way was to make these renovations in vacancy. “We have got no other tenant in view,” he said.

Mr. Mazengarb said (lie section dealing with the question was section four of the Rent Restriction Act, 1926, as amended by the Act of 1927. which provided that an application might be made to a magistrate by a tenant of premises to which tlie War Legislation Amendment Act did apply declaring Hint Hie Act should be reapplied. Tenant’s Evidence. Quinn, in evidence, said ae took the place in June. 1934, and agreed to pay £l/17/6 rent a week. He had paid the, rent fortnightly in advance. He had occupied Hie upper floor, which was tlie older part of the dwelling. Tlie roof had been in bad repair. In repairing it. the plumber had left the roofing iron apart to sucli an extent that the wind came in. Witness said he had asked for certain improvements from time to time, but did not think he had made any unreasonable demands. Ou February 5, 1936, lie had received a letter from the landlord giving him notice to quit Hie premises within a month, on tlie ground that iu view of tlie complaints which bad been made tlie landlord was going to undertake a complete overhaul of tlie building, and that it would be necessary for the house to lie empty.

Quinn said he had been endeavouring since February to get another flat, but had not been able to get one within a figure which he could afford. He desired to remain in the present house ami was quite willing to occupy it for a period of years yet. Mr. Virtue: Did you not inform Mr.

Russell, attorney for the landlord, that until various matters were attended to you would not pay any more rent. Quinn: Yes. but that referred to the roof. In reply to a question from the magistrate, Mr, Virtue said lie was pointing out that this tenant had a mind of his own. Cross-examined further by Mr. Virtue, witness said he had inspected quite a number of houses since February and so had his wife. He thought the present house was in a reasonable state of repair. Requests to Landlord. Mr. Virtue said that tlie Act provided that on the question of hardship, the onus was on the tenant to establish circumstances which made it proper for the. court to reapply the Act. There was no question of putting a man out into the street where he was unable to get aiiy other accommodation. It was a well-known fact that men in receipt of a much lower wage than Quinn were paying rental as high or higher. Quinn could afford to pay a slightly increased rental. Tlie attorney for Hie landlord read a list of the requests which had been made by Mrs. Quinn. Tlie landlord’s proposals were to renovate the roof. Mr. Lawry, in dismissing Queree’s application and applying the Act, said he considered on the evidence that there was not Hie slightest hardship on the landlord. Tlie hardship on the tenant was considerable. Accordingly he made an order in terms ot defendant’s notice of motion, without costs. Mr. Virtue raised the question whether tlie magistrate would make an order for possession at any term ahead, say, four or five months, on tlie ground that the premises were reasonably required by Hie landlord. This Mr. Lawry refused. A second case on similar lines was adjourned. War Legislation Act. Under part one of the War Legislation Act. an orden for the recovery of possession of a dwelling-house to which tlie Act applies, or for the ejectment of a tenant, may be made on one or more of Hie following grounds,. but shall not be made on any other :■ — (a) That the tenant lias failed to pay the rent at the agreed rate or to perform tlie other conditions of the tenancy. (b) That the tenant has failed to take reasonable care of the premises or has committed waste. (<•) That the tenant lias been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or annoyance to adjoining or neighbouring occupiers. (d) That the premises are reasonably required by the landlord for his own occupation as a dwelling-house. (e) That an agreement for the sale of the premises has been duly entered into to be completed by the transfer within one month from the date thereof and that tlie premises are reasonably required by the purchaser for bis own occupation as a dwellinghouse.

(f) That the tenant by sub-letting the dwelling-house or any part is making a profit which, having regard to the rent, is unreasonable. Section (d ) was subsequently amended to read : That the premises are reasonably required by the landlord for any purpose not being the letting to another tenant.