OWNER SUCCEEDS

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 70, 16 December 1937, Page 18

OWNER SUCCEEDS

Alternative Accommodation For Tenant

CLAIM FOR POSSESSION

A claim for possession of a house bought under I lie legislation requiring owners desiring to live in their own homes to find alternative accommodation or prove greater hardship on them than the tenants, was decided by Mr. H. P. Lawry,

S.M., at I’etone, yesterday, when he gave judgment for possession within seven days of a house at Petone iu favour of W. R. N’ankivell. labourer, Belmont, agaioM: Mrs. A. Balfour, widow, Petone. Mr. E. W. R. Haldane represented Nankivell. Nankivell vacated the house during the depression at the request of the mortgagees, who let the premises to the present tenant, said .Mr. Haldane. The Court of Review had adjudged Nankivell entitled to take back possession of his property, which he had been more or leas compelled to vacate by the mortgagees some years before, and this action followed that older. The Finance Act, as it amended the Fair Rents Act, required an owner who wanted to occupy his own property, which was tenanted as this one was, either to provide alternative accommodation for the tenant or to prove that greater hardship would be imposed on him than on the tenant if he could not get possession. The owner (Nankivell) was now occupying a rented house at Belmont, Lower . Hutt, and his landlord was prepared to let these premises to Mrs. Balfour. The rent was only 18/- a week, as against 25/Mrs. Balfour was paying.

The crux of the mbtter was involved in what was meant in the Finance Act as “alternative accommodation.” Mrs. Balfour would say that the house available for her was not in the same locality as the house she might be compelled to give up and she would also no doubt object to the fact that the house offered to her was not of the same class as the one she at present occupied. Mrs. Balfour and her son also had their employment at Petone, and they would no doubt say that it would be inconvenient for them to travel from Belmont for their work. Such an argument, he submitted, was of no avail. Petone and Lower Hutt were adjacent boroughs and for all intents and purposes they are one and the same district. Even if the alternative accommodation were in Upper Hutt or in Wellington city, with

the modern fast transport between the various suburbs it should be held to be suitable. The possible objection by Mrs. Balfour to the effect that the house offered at Belmont was not ns convenient and not of the frame class as the house she is occupying also was of no use to her. It wotild be manifestly impossible for any landlord seeking possession for his own occupation io provide, for the evicted tenant exactly the same accommoda-

tion in exactly the same locality. The rental of the house at Belmont was lower than the rental being paid by Mrs. Balfour at Petone. The house at Belmont had been good enough for Nankivell Io reside in. and it should be good enough for the tenant. "The Act is a very considerable encroachment upon the rights of ownership of property and for that reason I submit that the court should give a very wide interpretation to the meaning of the words ‘alternative accommodation’,” said Mr. Haldane. As to hardship, one of the reasons why Nankivell desired possession of his house was that the exterior of the house was in a very bad condition. Parts of the roof required renewing, and the whole house required repainting. He had promised the mortgagees that he would as soon as possible carry out these essential works and it was essential that they be carried out immediately. ■ Nankivell intended to carry out these repairs himself and his financial position was such that he could not employ anyone to do the work but had to do it himself. It was a breach of covenant on the part of the mortgagor to allow the property to be in and remain in a state of disrepair. It was quite possible that if these repairs were not carried out Nankivell might lose the property. The court must take this fact into account.

Nankivell had two children, while Mrs. Balfour had one adult son. Both Mrs. Balfour and her son were working, and if they thought they had to live at Petone it should not be difficult for them to obtain board. He submitted that the purpose of the clause in the Finance Act dealing with the alternative accommodation was to prevent tenants from being turned out of a, house on to the street. Thes - c were not the circumstances in this case. Mrs. Gladys Nankivell gave evidence on her husband’s behalf. Mrs. Balfour said the Belmont house was unsuitable for her. It had only a tank water supply and because of her health she objected to the climb living there would entail. She had had one look at the house and that was enough for her. The Hon. W; Nash knew the facts .of her case and was going to do what he could for her. There was also the cost of shifting to cons'jder. Mr. Lawry said the Nankivells had managed to live in the Belmont house, and Mrs. Balfour should be able to do the same or find some other place. If it were hard for her to live at Belmont it was just as hard for the owners of the house she now. lived in. Costs were allowed plaintiffs. HUTT RIVER BOARD Monthly Meeting The Hutt River Board held its monthly meeting yesterday, the chairman, Mr. J. Mitchell, presiding. The Railways Department advised that it would erect a footway and handrails at the private siding at Melting. . The board's share of the cost would be half. An application from the Lower Hutt Municipal Band for the lease of a section adjacent to Alicetown. on which to build, was granted at a rental of £2 from year to year.

Permission was given the Manx Motorcycle Club to use a stretch of land at the western side of the mouth of the Hutt River for trick-riding and other events.

A firm requiring metal for building filling purposes and which requested the right to erect a six to 10-yard screening bin on the beach near the borough council's yard was granted permission with the proviso that the work last for six months only.

The question of a flood guage for the Hutt River was raised by Mr. Brasell. The engineer, Mr. 11. Sladdon, reported that insufficient details were on hand of the type of guage required.

A letter was received from Mr. XV. A. F. Hall in which it was said that willows along the stopbank near Connolly Street had been cut down. A deputation to the writer requested an investigation of the matter.

The engineer reported that he had interviewed the person concerned and found that a fence bordering the stopbank had been removed. Cutting down the poplars and digging out the stumps was not regarded as a serious matter. Roots from the trees had grown to 50ft. into the man’s property so that he could not use a plough over the land in that locality. The poplars, said the engineer, were bettor destroyed. The board decided that the owner of the Land concerned be requested to reerect the fence. Offering Christinas greetings to the board, the chairman congratulated members on their work during the year and said that next- year the board's property would in all probability be increased in value to £15,000. His greetings were reciprocated.