TENANCY LAW.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XIII, Issue 283, 15 November 1923, Page 5

TENANCY LAW.

RIGHTS OF LESSEE. UNABLE TO ENFORCE POSSESSION (Our Own Correspondent.) Wellington, Nov. 15. The question whether the lessee of a house has power under the Housing Act to eject a tenant on the ground that he desires the premises for his own occupation was brought up in the Supreme Court yesterday, when Mr. Justice Salmond indicated his views prior to giving judgment in an interesting tenement case. Plaintiff was Morris Domb, formerly of Hamilton, land agent, and defendants were Victor Owler and Violet Owler. Plaintiff’s father agreed to lease the house in question to plaintiff for eighteen months and the lease was drawn up. Two notices to quit were served on defendants, who were £lO in arrears with their rent.

Mr. C. A. L. Treadwell, for plaintiff, maintained that the lessee had become the landlord and as such was entitled to possession of the premises which he was going to occupy personally. Mr. A. M. Cousins, for defendants, took the view that plaintiff was not the landlord and that the lease was only a subterfuge. His Honour said ho was satisfied that plaintiff was not entitled to recover possession of the premises and that plaintiff Was not the landlord within the meaning of the Act. “I am not satisfied at present that plaintiff is the right person to sue, even for rent.”

Mr. Cousins: We are holding the rent until the position is clear. In announcing his intention of stating his reasons in writing, His Honour said it could be understood that no order for possession would be made on the claim that plaintiff required the premises for his own occupation, and even if a claim were made for rent the order would be postponed to enable payment to be made.