TENANCY OF KELBURNE TEA KIOSK.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 86, 11 April 1912, Page 8

TENANCY OF KELBURNE TEA KIOSK.

CLAIM FOR EENT. Claim for rent and possession of the Kelburne Tea Kiosk was ma^de by the Kelburne and Karori Tramway Company against Maxwell Spens-Black, before Dr. M'Arthur, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court to-day. The amount claimed was £41 Os 2d, arrears. Mr. C. H. Izard, v/ho appeared for the plaintiff company, said that this was a claim for possession of premises ov/ing to a lease having ended, and for rent in arrears. There was a leas© from plaintiffs to defendant, dated 18th October, 1911, and it was for a term of three months from the 20th September, 1911, with a- right to renew for a further term of three months, upon defendant giving to. plaintiff notice of>such desire for renewal. On 9th December, more than a- week before the three months expired, defendant sent to plaintiff company a letter, requesting a renewal of the leaee of the tea kiosk for three months. After tho 20th March the defendant had been applied to for possession, and although he had promised to go out, he had not dono so, and as he defended the case, it must bo taken that he still declined to give up possession, though every latitude had been shown him. Subsequently Mr. Izard said that plaintiff company would forego the rent ii possession were granted. Evidence was given by Mr. T. S. Weston, solicitor acting on behalf of. the plaintiff company, to the effect that the leas© expired on 20th March, and plaintiff desired possession. , In an interview with witness, defendant said he would b6 glad to get out as he had made nothing out of the property. The rent — £4 per week — was too high for him. As soon as ho could get a new house he would vacate tho Kiosk. For defendant, Mr. T. Neave submitted that the action should be dismissed. The evidence tendered was quite in accordance with defendant's view of the matter. But defendant considered that he had a legal right ot tenure till 20th June next. It was further contended that, the -case- involved a question of titk^ and, tnercfore, the Court should decline jurisdiction — that jurisdiction being ousted when the Court construed the deed. A non-suit on tho question of rent was asked. Judgment was reserved.