NOVEL CLAIM

Evening Post, Volume CIII, Issue 145, 22 June 1922, Page 8

NOVEL CLAIM

RENT AS "SINKING FUND"

OVERPAYING THE STANDARD HATE. A rather novel claim was made by a defendant in a; tenement case, hcad'd byMr. F. K. Hunt, S.M., to-day. Briefly, he urged that he had been over-paying rent to. ths extent of 2s 6d per week for tho last five years and three weeks, and that this amounted to a payment ill advance. For that reason, no claim for posseusion could succeed until till© claimant had satisfied his demand for the over-paid rent. This view did not meet with the approval of the Magistrate, who made an order for possession wthin a month. 'Hie parties were Mrs.. Grace Westland Wallstron (plaintiff) and. Arthur David Bobbie (defendant). Plaintiff, who was represented by Mr. W. F. Ward, applied to the Court for ail order giving her possession of a tenement at 189, Gra.nt-road, o-nd. for judgment for the sum of £6 Ss as rent at the rate of 25s per week. The defendant conducted his own case. Mr. Ward said j that the application for possession was niade as the plaintiff required, the premises for her own use. The amount claimed for rent was subject to amendment, and plaintiff was quite prepared" to accept the statement shown in the defendant's rent-book. Grace Westland Wallstron, the plaintiff, said tho weekly rental was 255. Sh« wanted the house for her personal use, as she was at present boarding, together with, her family. The rent was paid upto'23rd Apiil.' To Mr. Robbie : She had purchased the house without seeing the inside, this on account of the fact that the defendant had not ■ permitted her to see through the place. ■. Mr. Robbie, in Jiis defence, said he had been the tenant of the house in Grantroad for five years and three weeks. Shortly after taking possession defendant received notice to quit, the owner's son making no secret of the fact that he wished to have the house empty in order to effect repairs in order that the place might be sold on the boom. Mr. Robbie said that he ha.d been made aware that the rent he was paying, 25s per week, was in excess of the rent paid on 3rd August, 1914. He submitted that on account of the fact that he had been paying over the standard rent he had really been paying his rent in advance. The rent in 1914 was £1 2s 6d. and he had been paying £1 5s per week; therefore he considered that lie had paid rent in advance to the extent of £32 17s 6d. Mr. Hunt: "Did you ever give the owner notice that you were going to rstay in the house until all those halfcrowns were eaten up?" Mr. Robbie: "Yes, I did." ,Mr. Hunt: "And did she agree?" Mr. Robbie: "No." Mr. Hunt: "What you should really do is to apply to have the standard rent fixed." . • Mr. RobbW said that the result of the action would affect thousands of people 'all over New Zealand who' were-eimilarly situated with he. The confusion in tho public mind was caused by the fact that one Act was mandatory, and the other, the 1920 Act, cave the parties, the landlord or the tenant, power to'seek relief.' He was in the same position as a man who liad tiaid his rent in advance, and until he had recovered the amount .from the previous owner or. the present owner |he could not be ejected.

• In-giving his decision, the Magistrate said that if lie could prove that he had paid more than the standard rental the defendant could recover from the original owner over a period of six months, subject, of course, to any application for' relief made by the landlord. To use what he considered he had overpaid as a sinking fund could not be allowed. •Defendant could come to the Court to have the standard rental fixed. The Magistrate mad^ an order for possession in a month, and gave judgment for rent for £3 7s 6d.