A LANDLORD'S RIGHTS

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 1, 1 July 1926, Page 9

A LANDLORD'S RIGHTS

INTERPRETATION OF THE LAAA;

A controversial point was settled by ili-._.Page, S.M., to-day, when he held that a landlord was not entiled to recover possession of premises when the rent was in arrear, unless a notice to quit had been served. It was shown that F. Smith, electrical engineer, of Wellington, let a shop and dwelling in Vivian street to Richard Lancely at a rental of £3 a week. Three months later, the rent was £18 in arrear, and the plaintiff issued a summons claiming, under section 170 of the Magistrate's Court Act, possession of the premises upon the ground that the rent was ai arrear. In his judgment, Mr. Page said the section only applied in cases where the landlord had a light by law to re-enter for non-payment of rent. There was no right implied by law for a landlord to re-enter for non-payment of rent. Such a light would have to be created by the express or implied terms of the lease. Under the Property Law Act and the Laud Transfer Act certain rights of re-entry were implied in leases which come within the provisions of these statutes. It had been decided in the case of Lyons v. Guy that, these implied conditions did not apply to tenancies similar to the present one. His AVorship thought tlnvt until the landlord had given a proper notice determining lbtenancy, he was noi entitled to reenv possession of the promises. The apportion would have to be refused, though tl. plaintiff was entitled to judgment for il-l-cut due. At the hearing M.\ D. AY. Virtue appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. C. B. i Q'Donncll for the defendant, _,