POSSESSION OF HOUSE

King Country Chronicle, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4809, 12 July 1939, Page 5

POSSESSION OF HOUSE

RELATIVE HARDSHIP ISSUE. NO ORDER MADE. TENANT WITH SEVEN CHILDREN. Though it was admitted that a year's rent was owing, the plaint brought to yesterday's Magistrate's Court by Thomas E. Ryall, railway employee, of Frankton Junction, for possession of his house occupied by G. Lee, of Edward Street, Te Kuiti, labourer, was unsuccessful, the Magistrate, Mr. Freeman, stating at the completion of the hearing, that on the question of relative hardship he could not make an order for possession. Judgment against the defendant for £lO, the amount of the rent outstanding, was given, and defendant was told that he would have to reduce this at the rate of 2s 6d a week. Mr. Hine appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. Paterson for the defendant.

The arrears of rent and the tenancy were admitted, and the parties came to Court to decide the question of relative hardship. The house had been rented to Lee in 1935, and after defaulting in rent for the first year, he had kept payments up to date, but still owed the first year's payments. Ryall stated that he was employed at £5 6s 3d at Frankton, where, totally unable to secure a house, he and his wife lived in a hotel, paying £3 a week board. An adult daughter, a semi-invalid with two children at present living with her brother at Ngaruawahia in premises which he could only describe as a barn, was partially dependent on him. He wished to send his wife, daughter and her two children to live in his house at Te Kuiti, and then endeavour to secure work down here.

"I have struggled hard to keep possession of this house for 20 years, and now, when I find I need it desperately, a stranger has apparently the prior right of possession," he said. When Mr. Freeman asked if any State houses were to become available in Te Kuiti, Mr. Hine said he understood that eight were to be opened that week—but there had been 80 applicants for them!

When Mr. Paterson said that Lee received £4 a week and had nine mouths to feed, the plaintiff said that he had combed Hamilton to secure a house. Plenty of them were empty, but they were kept empty for ale purposes.

The Magistrate said that thousands of houses were required in the Dominion.

The Plaintiff: If a man gets behind with his rent, cannot he be made to give up the house? The Magistrate pointed out that this happened four years ago. So far as the possession of the house was concerned, this could not greatly affect the position now.

Mr. Paterson detailed to the Court how Lee was a married man with seven children, and it was quite impossible for him to obtain alternative accommodation. jDefendaint earned £4 a week, less tax, and received £1 a week family allowance.

Questioned by the Magistrate, the defendant said he was utterly unable to pay an extra 2s 6d a week in reduction of the old rent account. Mr. Hine said that the furniture included a wireless. The defendant held that this had nothing to do with the case, but pressed by the Magistrate, he said that it had cost £25 and there was nothing owing on it.

Mr. Freeman said he was unable, on the Question of relative hardship, to make an order for possession of the house, but gave judgment for the amount of the rent outstanding, and told the defendant that he would have to reduce this at the rate of 2s 6d a week.