FAIR RENTS ACT

Evening Post, Volume CXXXI, Issue 101, 1 May 1941, Page 6

FAIR RENTS ACT

UNFIT RESIDENCE

EFFECT OF CLOSING ORDER

Decision has been reserved by the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) on an application to. the Supreme Court for a writ prohibiting Mr. A. M. Goulding, S.M.,.from considering an application under the Fair Rents Act in respect of a house in Tasman Street, which is the subject of a closing order issued by the Wellington City Council *' under the Health Act. A point of argument was whether the fact that the . house was unfit for human occupation excluded it from the provisions of the Fair Rents Act. The plaintiff was Deborah Arthur, of Tasman Street (Mr. R. E. Harding), ■ and the defendants Arthur Morice Gouldihg, S.M.; and Marie Burgess, dressmaker. Mr. J. A. Scott appeared for the second defendant. The statement of claim set out that Marie Burgess occupied a house in Tasman Street owned by the plaintiff and' let before the Fair Rents Act came into operation. On'about June 25 and 26, 194.0,' owner and tenant were individually-served with a closing order issued by the City Council under the Health Act, 1920/ prohibiting the use of the house for human occupation until certain repairs, alterations, or works specified in the order had been carried out to the satisfaction of the council. On July 18 the tenant, by a motion filed in the Magistrate's. Court, made . application under the Fair Rents Act, 1936, to Mr. Goulding for an order determining the fair rent of the house, j At the hearing,in the Magistrate's Court it was contended for the plain-! tiff that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to*deal with the application, and he adjourned the hearing to allow the matter to go to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is being asked to i prohibit the Magistrate from entertaining the tenant's application. SUBMISSIONS BY COUNSEL. Mr. Harding submitted that the Fair Rents.Act would apply unless it were ousted by the combined effect of the closing order and the Health Act. The repairs had not 'been done, and it was admitted that the closing order remained- in force. It was contended that the tenant was unlawfully in occupation of the premises, and as it was unlawful to remain in the house the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to fix' a fair rent. The issue of the closing order destroyed the relationship of landlord "and tenant, as that relationship was based on lawful letting and lawful- occupying. The words "let as a separate dwelling" in the Fair Rents Act meant lawful letting not in contravention of any statute. Mr. Scott contended that the relationship of landlord and tenant was not destroyed' by the closing order. Section 40 of the Health Act, it 'was

HFKGJHD