RENTS & LANDLORDS

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXVI, Issue 147, 6 June 1936, Page 5

RENTS & LANDLORDS

Inability of Tenants To Pay BILL DISCUSSED (By Telegraph—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, June 6. In the House of Representatives the Hon. H. G. H. Mason moved the second reading of lire Distress and Replevin Amendment Bill. He said that the Bill dealt with one point only ut present. The Distress aud Replevin Act gave a landlord power to distrain the goods of the tenant us a means of ejecting the tenant fur non-payment of rent without relcreuce to the Court. The Bill was intended to put an end to that state of affairs. It was a very harsh proceeding, Mr. Muson added, that where u tenant was unable to pay his rent he should be liable to have his goods seized without any exemption. Under ordinary circumstances a tenant’s furniture aud his tools-of-trade, things that are looked upon us essential to life, are given exemption up to £5O, but if landlords made a demand for possession and the tenant did not go out then that exemption was lost. The Fair Bent Bill would cover the point in the meantime, but it would run out next year. It was hard to understand why the Act had remained on the Statute Book so long, but tho reason probably was that lawyers were loath to put its provisions into use. The Rt. Hom J. G. Coates (Nat. — Kaipara) said that the legal fraternity themselves objected to using tho provisions of the Act. The Hon. j. G. Cobbe (Nat. —Orua) said that when he was Minister of Justice he had introduced a Bill on almost similar lines to the present one, but the opposition came mostly from the legal profession. Mr. W. J. Broadfoot (Nat. —Waitomo) said that the provision in the present Act was only used in the direst circumstances to get rid of a bad tenant, and he would suggest to the Minister that as it was proposed to emasculate that provision in the Act he should make the operations of obtain«ng possession of a tenement simpler and quicker. Mr. It. A. Wright (Ind —Wellington Suburbs) said that most landlords preferred a tenant who was not paying his rent to leave, but there were some incorrigible tenants, and ’t was then that the provision of the Act wac put into force. Mr. A. 8. Richards (Lab. —Roskill) did not think that the Bill would prove any hardship to a decent landlord, end would assist to protect a tenu.n was genuinely distressed, THE BAD TENANT. Mr. W. A. Bodkin (Nat. —Otago Central) said that some provision should be made to get rid of bad tenants which, perhaps, were annoying neighbours or causing a nuisance. He did not think inability to pay rent ehould be the sole cause of ejectment. Mr. Mason said that solicitors seldom put the present provision into operation, but the fact that it was in existence was a blot on the legislation. It was testimony to the decency of landlords that it had seldom been used, but the power should not be there. The second reading was carried, and the House went into committee to consider the Fair Bents Bill. Mr. Coates said that in 1934 and 1935 there had been a considerable increase in buildings, and the man who was willing to build houses should be given a measure of security that would encourage him to do so. Tho Dominion was now entering a period of Tinprov-c-d conditions, and why should a landlord not be permitted to share in it? A landlord who had given a tenant every consideration in hard times would bo the first to suffer. Mr. Bodkin thought that legislation of this type was undesirable. He did not think that where tenants were charged an unfair rent that the position should be left there, but a Bill of that sort would make the position more acute. It was not a good thing that the burden of providing houses for people should be left exclusively to the State,