DEFAULTING TENANTS

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXIV, Issue 236, 18 September 1934, Page 6

DEFAULTING TENANTS

Hastings Chamber of Commerce Attitude DISTRESS BILL APPROVED Contrary to the views of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, the Hastings Chamber voiced approval of the proposed Distress and Replevin Amendment Bill, which gives absolute exemption to the personal possessions of a defaulting tenant up to £5O in value. The association wrote to the chamber last evening pointing out that the bill repealed the right of the landlord to distrain if possession of premises was not given up on demand. The association considered that the provisions of the bill were unreasonable, and it had been decided that the secretary give evidence before the Statutes Revision Committee of the House. The Real Estate Institute had been approached beforehand, and that body had stated that while they were sympathetic with the intention of assisting the unfortunate tenant, they considered that the old Act was preferable and made sufficient provision for such assistance. Mr C. Duff said that if a tenant was in arrears with his rent, the landlord could levy a distress warrant on the furniture of the tenant and provided the tenant did not give possession immediately on demand he would forfeit his exemption to £5O worth of furniture or persona] effects. “It is a difficult and arbitrary matter,’’ said Mr Duff, “but I feel that the final say should be left to the Court. The idea is to have protection for the unfortunate tenant as regards his actual bed.

“There is, of course, the other side of the question,” he said, “that of the landlord, but he has his. remedy at law. The right to seize things without yea or nay does not seem right to me, and there ought to be protection of some sort from creditors by leaving the matter to the Court to decide.”

The chairman, Mr H. W. C. Baird, asked if there was any step that the chamber could take in the matter.

“The law hag been as it is at present for a number of years,” said Mr Duff. ‘Personally I approve of the bill.” The secretary, Mr F. Perrin, stated that when the matter was before the House the Minister had made a reply lo a question to the effect that the bill afforded some protection to the unfortunate tenant.

Mr Duff moved at this stage that the chamber notify the association that it approved of the bill and not of their objection to it for the reasons outlined by the Minister. “Really the purpose of seizing the furniture is not to realise on it for money, ns there is little to be gained at the auction, but it is done essentially to gain possession of the premises,” said Mr Duff.

Mr W. C. Whitlock seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously