HOUSE OR DAIRY FARM?

Evening Post, Volume CI, Issue 39, 15 February 1921, Page 8

HOUSE OR DAIRY FARM?

THE WEEKLY TENANCY CASE

MAGISTRATE REFUSES ORDER OF

EVICTION.

After a week's adjournment, the tenement case, John Esau Miles (Mr. T. Neave) v. S. Prestidge (Messrs. C. A. L. Treadwell and A. M. Cousins), in which there were quite unusual features, was again called before Mr. F. K. Hunt, S.jyL, at the Magistrate's Court this morning. The main point to be decided ■was as to whether ; the premises, consisting of a dwelling-house, four acres of ]and, and a cow-shed, came within the provisions of the .Housing Act, which can deal with dwelling-houses only. Mr. Neave intimated when the case was before the court last week that he would abandon the claim for possession were the premises rated as within the category of .a dwelling-house, since the hardship plainly lay with the tenant. There, were other unusual features, including a clause, in the printed lease of the premises, which purported to give the landlord power to increase the rent by giving one week's notice, providing that the tenant remained in occupation after the expiration of such notice. In this case the ftlantinff had made two demands for increases of rent, from 27s to 32s a ■week, and later to £2 per week. The demands, however, were not met, and plaintiff sought to recover sums which he considered in arrear as a result of the defendant's failure to comply with the-notices given.

This, morning Mr. Cousins set out the points of defence. The contract made between the parties, he said, had to do with a dwelling only, and the printed contract had reference to a -dwelling only. The tenant did not require the land, but he could get nothing else, and 80 took that place. ■ The tenant had not used the land, which was for the most part covered with scrub, though he had, in order to help an incapacitated returned soldier, allowed him to graze two cows there free. . Further, he contended, the rent (275) agreed on could never have referred to any more than the house, and the agreement expressly stated that.the premises were to be used as a private dwelling. The" Magistrate replied that such a provision might merely differentiate a dwelling' from a.factory, but the fact that the premises were let' on a weekly tenancy ...seemed to'l point, to an., agreement for the letting of a dwelling and not of a dairy farm;: Mr. Neare held that it was plain that the place was a. small dairy farm, as indeed it had always been let until the present control of the city's milk supply put small, local dairymen out of business. The owner was surely entitled to a return of 7 per cent, on the capital value of the property, which was worth several thousands of pounds. The Act could never have been intended to apply to premises comprising a house, four acres of land, and a cowshed. The tenant'frankly did nst want the land, hut since he wanted to remain in the house the whole property was held up. The Magistrate said that he had' not much doubt over the matter.. The landlord had so many houses that it paid him to have printed forms prepared, and it was obvious ihat the land'was an essential part of the contract; but it was (ridiculous to think that any man in his senses would take a farm on a weekly tenancy, tflough houses were frequently ta-ken on such terms. . On the .back of the lease appeared a sketch plan of the premises referred to, and those plans were, of the house only, not of the land. He had no hesitation in refusing to make the orders asked, for.