TENANT WHO WOULD NOT QUIT

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 260, 30 July 1937, Page 5

TENANT WHO WOULD NOT QUIT

Magistrate’s Decision LANDLORD’S ACTION FAILS An interesting point of tenancy law was decided in a judgment given •» L I I( > Magistrate’s Court., Wellington, yesterday by Mr. -I. 1 1. Luxford, S.M, i u a ease where a tenant refused to va(..„e premises which Imd been sold but the sale of which had not .'et bcui completed. t inier the ''H'enins auees the vendor wa s adjudged to.be still tl < landlord, and under the lair Lents A<*l was unable to evict tbe tenant. The action was brought by _ Neil Eugene Dean and S. Riske against J. S. Pinbey. .Mr. E. E. McDonald allpearl'd for plaintiffs, and Mr. M'. Hay, al’ the Labour Department, for defendant The house which was the subject of the argument is situated at 14 Monro Street, Seatoun, and is occupied by Pin hey. , t It was slated Unit Riske agreed to sell the premises to Dean; a notice to quit: signed by both Riske and Dean was served on the tenant. Pinhey, who refused to vacate tbe tenement. Dean then commenced tbe present proceedings, in which Riske joined him. ■’There can be no doubt that Dean became the equitable owner of the tenmuent on the signing of the agreement,” stilted the mugistrate. '‘The law is clear that an equitable owner can maintain an action in ejectment it the legal owner is a party to the proceedings. This rule is not absolute: indeed, he cannot obtain an order for possession unless lie has acquired the status of landlord.

“The evidence shows that the plaintiff Riske is the only person entitled to receive rent from the defendant until the contract of sale is completed. I therefore find that Riske is the true landlord of the tenement, and as ho has not established any of the grounds specified in the Fair Rents Act, the order for possession must be refused.” A Similar Case. Another somewhat similar ease was decided by Mr. Luxford yesterday. This was brought by Charles Edward Yates, company manager, represented by Mr. W. D. Goodwin, against Sarah Tossman, married woman, represented by Mr. J. O’Doiiovan. “This case raises an important question of practice.” said Mr. Luxford. “The plaintiff claims possession of a certain tenement of which he is the equitable owner under an incomplete!! agreement for sale and purchase. In the judgment 1 have just delivered I hold that such an equitable owner Is not a landlord within the meaning of the Magistrates’ Court Act, and for the reasons then given I must hold that the plaintiff is not. entitled to maintain the present action. “There is only one cause of action in which the legal and equitable owner are equally interested, and the doubt arose as to which of them is entitled to sue. In the particular circumstances of this case I find that: the legal owner only can maintain the action, and fc order that he be substituted as plaintiff, and that possession of the tenement described in the statement of claim be given to him within four weeks from this date.”