HELD A BUSINESS

Evening Post, Volume CXXVIII, Issue 48, 26 February 1942, Page 8

HELD A BUSINESS

KEEPING BOARDERS

ORDER FOB POSSESSION OF HOUSE

An order f ior vacant possession of a house in Haiison Street to be given to the owner t for the soldier's wife who rents the pr jemises has been made by Mr. Justice Ostler in a reserved judgment. Thies' hearing in the Supreme Court was, aii appeal by William James Curtis, trustee of the estate of, Ellen Corbridge, jfrom a decision of a Magistrate who : had refused an order for possession.. In the Magistrate's Court proceed in gs the plaintiff claimed possession of,' the house so that he could sell it arid distribute the.estate, and he conte tided that by keeping four boarders «the tenant was using the house for business purposes and was therefor & not entitled to the protection of the F; air Rents Act. For the tenant, Irene Wfinifred Devlin, it was submitted that she kept boarders not to make ii profit, but to supplement the soldieif's allotment and wife's allowance tj ntil her husband's return from active service.

In I.i is judgment Mr. Justice Ostler I pointe A out that the Court of Appeal had h eld that the material ■ question which. the Court must consider was the purpose for which the premises were being used by the tenant at the date on which notice to quit was receive id, or at the date when it expired. In t'J iis case for some months before the r jotice was received and right down to tl present time,' the premises had beei i used for the keeping of four boai .tders. Therefore, in his opinion, whatever the motive of the defendant mifiltj t have been in keeping the boarders, the premises were used principal ly for business purposes, and, that be'^ig so, they were not within the de fmition of dwelling-house in the F?f;ir Rents Act, and the defendant was ntsit entitled to the protection of that A«t. ENTITLED TO POSSESSION. "'Whatever the hardship to the def fcndant may be, thb plaintiff is by 1 n\v entitled to the possession of the property, and it is my duty'to make an order for possession," said hia Honour. "This Court must do justice •according to the law." The only I reason for keeping boarders must be (to make a profit out of them, and it could not be denied that where four boarders were kept in a six-roomed house, that house was used principally , for business purposes. "In my opinion, both the judgment ; of the Magistrate and the argument of ; counsel for the defendant, exhibit thesame confusion of thought," said his Honour. "The use to which the defendant has put the premises is th© | relevant consideration, not the motive : or reason why she has done so. Hapily, the hardship in this case is not great. The defendant has no children, ' she receives £2 12s 6d from her hus- ' band, and she has her own earning power in addition, for she is free to choose any of the numei'ous forms of [ female employment which are at pre- : sent available." Mr. R. R. Scott appeared at the \ hearing for the plaintiff and Mr. J. ' Meltzer for the defendant.