OPERATION OF FAIR RENTS ACT

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 128, 24 February 1938, Page 13

OPERATION OF FAIR RENTS ACT

Defence By Minister Of Finance PREVENTING HARDSHIP TO TENANTS ■ “Tiie Housing Construction Department is accepting tenders for new houses every day, The State Advances Corporation will make loans to desirable applicants on easier terms than in any previous period in the history of the Dominion, but until more houses are available the Government considers that families who have regularly paid their rent and who keep the property in reasonably good order should be freed as far as is possible from the fear of eviction until alternative accommodation is provided,” declared tne Minister of Finance, Hon. W. Nash, in an interview yesterday. Mr. Nash commented on repeated statements which had appeared in the Press to the effect that the clause contained in the Finance Act, 1937, protecting the tenant -of a dwelling to which the Fair Rents Act applies from eviction unless suitable alternative accommodation is available, is not warranted as adequate protection already exists.

“No one is more aware of the true position.” said the Minister, “than members of Parliament and Ministers who are confronted almost daily with representations and requests, from those threatened with eviction.” Minister Quotes Case.

The following, Mr. Nash said, was a recent example of a case which was typical of many. An order to give up possession was made- against a tenant of a house in a suburb of Wellington on the grounds that the landlady wanted the premises for her own use. The tenant was a married man, a returned soldier in receipt of an invalidity pension of £3 10/- a week, out of which lie had to support a wife and four children, all of whom were of school age. Every conceivable attempt was made to find other accommodation, the husband and wife walking all over Wellington in addition to interviewing agents, answering advertisements, applying to the State Advances Department, but without success. That there was every willingness to move if only somewhere could be found was indicated by the fact that all the linoleums had been rolled up for two months and nearly all the family belongings had been packed so that the house could be vacated with the least possible, delay. Rent, incidentally, was fully paid up. Rights of Property-Owners. “Will any reasonable person suggest that this family should be evicted from their home until other accommodation is available?” Mr. Nash asked. “The Government's policy has always given due recognition to the rights which property-owners possess in regard to the disposition of their property,” he said. “It was possible, under the previous legislation, to obtain possession of a routed house where it was required by the owner, for his personal occupation or for his employee, and that right has been modified only to the extent necessary to prevent hardship. Instances have occurred, however, where owners have taken advantage of their legal right to obtain possession on these grounds merely for the ulterior purpose of getting rid of a tenant or of putting up the rent.. It is perfectly clear that the hardship inflicted on an invalid, wife and four children by their eviction from their present home will be infinitely greater than any hardship caused to the owner by their continued occupancy.” - The Minister said that there had been a great deal of mis-statement and misunderstanding as to the operation of the Fair Rents Act, 1936, and the amendment contained in the Finance Act, 1937. Throughout the legislation protection had been restricted to the good tenant who needed the house as a home. It had been withheld from the tenant who failed to pay his rent, damaged the property or sublet at a profit, and he had never been protected. Where, through being unable to obtain possession of his house for occupation by himself or his employee, a landlord was suffering greater hardship than that which an eviction would cause to the tenant, that fact alone was sufficient ground for a magistrate to order pos-' session to be given. Fixing Fair Rent. “No landlord is compelled to accept an unduly low rent, and no tenant has been required to pay an unduly high rent, both parties being entitled to have the fair rent fixed by the court,” Mr. Nash said. “None of the restrictions apply to houses which were not let between November 27, 1935, and June 11, 1936, or to houses were first let after June 11, 1936. “The Fair Rents Act and the amendment last year have no application whatever to new houses, and cannot possibly discourage or hamper new building. The sole purpose of the legislation is to prevent the kind of hardship that should never be permitted in a civilised community—danger to the health and welfare of men, women and young children.

“The Fair Rents Act does not go one step beyond what is essential to stop such hardship, and where there is any doubt ample power is given to magistrates to relieve the party who is really suffering.” t Mr. Nash outlined the conditions which must be complied with to ensure protection from eviction. These were: (1) The house must be one that was let on a rental basis prior to June 11, 1936.

(2) The property must be of a lower rental value than £3 a week.(3) The tenant must take reasonable care of the property. • (4) The tenant must not make a profit by sub-letting part of the house. (5) The tenant must not be in arrear with the rent.

(6) If the premises are required by the owner for his own occupation or for occupation by an employee, the tenant must give up the property if suitable alter:;"'ive accommodation is, or will be, .avail: 'de. (7) With ail these safeguards the magistrate can still determine where hardship lies and; if it is proved to his satisfaction that the hardship to the owner is greater than the hardship to the occupier if evicted, the magistrate must give possession to the owner. Until Houses are Available. “With regard to rent, the owner has now and always has had the right to have tlie fair rent fixed by agreement, or failing agreement, by a magistrate, and this rent, must be paid to obtain protection," the Minister continued. “The alternatives are, turning decent people out of their homes or protecting them until other houses are available. “The Government recognises the dif-

Acuities of .young people in particular who desire to purchase existing properties, but none of them would desire to start their married life by turning some other family adrift; and that Is the alternative until new houses are available.”