REPAIRS AND THE COST

Evening Post, Volume CXXXIV, Issue 25, 29 July 1942, Page 4

REPAIRS AND THE COST

Criticism directed by the Mayor, Mr. Hislop, against owners of rented houses who have refused authority to the Corporation to carry out repairs made necessary by the recent earthquake is justified, especially if the refusal is dictated, as Mr. Hislop suggests, by a desire to force tenants to give up possession. Apart from the question of ethics involved—the taking advantage of a common misfortune to enforce something which the law does not permit—the withholding of consent must seriously interfere with'the council's plans for systematically making good the extensive damage in the quickest possible time. As the powers now possessed by the municipality under the Health Act are not sufficiently wide to force owners to have the repairs carried out, the Mayor proposes special legislation to enable the work to be done, without prior consent, and the cost to be charged to the owners. There can be no objection to this on general grounds. At the same time, the rights of owners should not be disregarded entirely. If they are to be forced to pay for the repairs, there should be some way open to them to be recompensed for the expenditure through the rents they receive. Earthquake repair work cannot be regarded as ordinary maintenance (which is a legitimate charge on owners of property), and it would be unreasonable to expect the owners to meet the whole cost out of their own pockets. Legislation covering the relationship between owner and tenant, as'it is written today, very definitely favours the tenant; the owner's rights, both as to the rent he receives and the disposal of his property, are strictly limited. Without entering into the merits or demerits of such legislation, there' is, in the special circumstances arising from the earthquake, a strong case for applying in a greater measure the principle of equity, and that fact should not be overlooked when and if the legislation proposed by Mr. Hislop is drafted.