LANDLORD FINED

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 147, 18 March 1937, Page 17

LANDLORD FINED

Breach of Fair Rents Act

MAGISTRATE’S COMMENT

A prosecution under the Fair Kents Act, 1936, was made in the Magistrate’s Court, Wellington, yesterday against Leon W. Wilkens, owner of a dwelling-house situated at 24 Arawa Road, IVcllington, The charge was that having obtained possession by representing that he required the house for bis own occupation he relet it within six months without having obtained an authorising order from a magistrate. Defendant, who pleaded guilty through ignorance of the law, was convicted anil tined £lO, with costs £!/_/-. Mr. J. 11. Luxford, S.M., was on the bench. Mr. F. C. Hay, Inspector of Factories, prosecuted, and Mr. M. 1. Luckie appeared tor Wilkens. Section .13 of the Act restricted the right of landlords to relet when possession was obtained under certain conditions, said Mr. Hay. Defendant gave notice to his tenant, a Mr. Sythes, on November 7, 1936, stating that be required the house for his own occupation. The house was vacated on December 7, and another tenant took over the lease, paying 10/- a week more than the basic rent of 32/6.

Hardship Pleaded.

Mr. Luckie said defendant had no knowledge that he was under any restriction. He had become unemployed, and had found over the last two years that the charges on the house were not being met by the incomings. He did the reasonable thing, but in the wrong way. He could have proved to a magistrate that the rental value was at least £2. The effect of the law was to force a man, unless he could get authority to increase the rent, to go on losing money. The magistrate: The only thing you are saying in mitigation is that he was ignorant of the law. Counsel: That is so, sir, and also the fact that his circumstances would not permit of his continuing to receive the lower rental.

The magistrate: There is the fact that he obtained possession for one of the reasons mentioned in the Act. Counsel was given an opportunity to prove that defendant did intend to occupy. Mr. Luckie intimated that he would like to take that course, and permission was given, the magistrate remarking, however, that it was unusual after the court had begun to deliver judgment. Defendant then entered the witnessbox. He said that after giving notice to the tenant he received an offer of £2/2/6 a week for the house, but liis original intention was to occupy it himself. To Mr. Hay witness said he was still residing in the house be himself leased. He denied telling Mr. Sythes that this house had been sold and he would therefore require possession of the Arawa Street property. The magistrate: Was the house relet before the tenant vacated? Witness: Yes, about a week before.

After you gave notice to your tenant, when did you give notice to your own landlord?—“l ,did not give any notice. The landlord is my wife.” And you are paying her £2 a week rent?—“Yes.”

A Grave Case. Giving judgment, the magistrate said defendant had obtained possession by a false representation. It was clear he had no intention of going into the house. The ease was therefore a grave one under the Act, which was designed to protect persons in occupation of houses. There was specific provision with respect to the obtaining, of orders by false pretences. If possession was obtained ou one of the grounds mentioned in section 13, and the ground was false, or if a house was re-let within six months after the landlord had obtained possession, he was liable to a fine or ±uo. The case was not merely a technical breach but one where a statement was made fraudulently.