TENEMENT CASE.

Grey River Argus, 5 July 1922, Page 7

TENEMENT CASE.

A BLAKETOWN claim. Judgment was yesterday given by Mr W. Meldrum, 8.M., in the recentlyheard case in which Mrs Jessie Morgan (Mr J. D. ilessell) sued Henry Lawrence (Mr W. J. Joyce') for the possession of a tenement in Blaketown and £l7 19/- rent due. Defendant counterclaimed for £5 4/- for repairs alleg'd to have been made by him. The case was virtually a test one, ami the effect of the decision given is that a Magistrate can only exercise discretion under the present Housing Act when claimant for possession of a tenement fails to prove each and every fact of the claim. The Magistrate, said that until recently there had been some doubt an 1 uncertainty as to the effects of the Housing Act and the War Legislature and Statute Law amendments upon the right of a landlord to recover possession of premises from ;• tenant refusing to quit. In 191.9 discretion was given to the Court to consider the hardship to the tenant; in 1920 discretion given to consider hardship, to the landlord. In 1921-2 both these discretion-' ary powers were withdrawn. The legal position had been settled by recent decisions of Mr Justice Hosking in John son v. Fischer and Sue Sing v. Smith I and another, and by a more recent decision of Sir John Salmond given in i Wellington last week. Those eases hrd followed recent English decisions made under similar legislation. He was bound therefore by those decisions in deciding the present ease. The original tenancy was determined on May 21 by the notice to quit and the tenant though not a trespasser as under common law, had an implied statutory tenancy under the war legislation, determinable only by an order from the Gourt for possession. The question had been argued us to whether the word “may” used in section 9 of the Housing Amendment Act, 1921-22 was entirely discretionary with the Magistrate or whether it was his duty to grant an order for possession if the conditions imposed by the section are complied with. In this case the particular condition relied on by the plaintiff was that the rent was in arrears when the plaint was entered. In view of the authorities, he could not sec that he had any power to refuse plaintiff an order for possession. Judgment would be given for plaintiff for £ll 9/- rent due and defendant would be allowed £3 6/9 on his counter-claim. Warrant for possession would issue on July 18.