STATE HOUSE

Evening Post, Volume CXXXIX, Issue 50, 28 February 1945, Page 4

STATE HOUSE

TENANT'S ADDITIONS

DEPARTMENT'S GROUNDS FOR ACTION

O.C. WANGANUI, February 27. An unusual action was taken in the Magistrate's Court at Marton today, the State Advances Corporation claiming possession of a State house. It submitted evidence that, contrary to the regulations, a bicycle shed, a caravan shelter, two lean-tos, and a dog kennel had been added to the house subsequent to the letting and without the consent of the landlord.

The defendant, Robert GranvilleSmith, opposed the claim, submitting that the plaintiff was making a most unusual objection.for a landlord.

Mr. A. Coleman, S.M., reserved his decision after inspecting the property. Wilfred H. Hartnell, property supervisor, in evidence, produced the tenancy, agreement which had been signed by the parties and a letter to the defendant pointing out that the additional buildings were contrary to regulation. He also produced a notice to quit, issued under the Fair Rents Act. He described the buildings as constructed of inferior timber, not in a tradesman like manner, and poorly •finished. One structure, a few inches from the dwelling, was infected with destructive borer.

Cross-examined by Mr. J. Grant, who appeared for the defendant, the witness said that when he first noticed the erections they did not seem unsightly. The woodshed had been up five years, and there had been no objection. He allowed reasonable latitude for minor buildings, but the caravan was objected to.

Mr. Grant: Was it unsightly?—lt was no improvement to the property. If it were not for the caravan and shelter there would be no objection? —Probably. The question of an air raid shelter was not objectionable while in the public safety?— No. Counsel for the defendant said that three buildings were objected to. The tenant had been in residence since 1938 and had added ' concrete paths without objection, while an air raid shelter had been commended. Apart from a technical breach of the tenancy agreement the only objection was that; the buildings were unsightly. The defendant, in evidence, said he had spent £200 on improvements, including an air raid shelter.