POSSESSION OF HOUSE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVIII, Issue 18352, 9 March 1920, Page 10

POSSESSION OF HOUSE.

WRONGLY WORDED NOTICE. The difference in meaning betweeii the words “ within ” and “ in ” was the cause of a plaintiff in a civil notion being nonsuited by Mr S. E, M’Oarthy, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. . The action was for the possession of a house situated at 29, Churchill Street. A claim was also made for rent amounting to £2 Os (od. The plaintiff was A. W. Eamos (Mr J. R. Guningham) and the defendant Mrs Treleaven (Mr F. D- Sargent), a widow.

The plaintiff stated that 9 tho house had been sold and a deposit paid by tho purchaser six months ago- Defendant had been given a month’s notice to quit, hub she had not complied with this notice.

To Mr Sargent: Although houses might he scarce, he considered defendant could easily have obtained suitable furnished rooms.

Mr Sargent applied for a nonsuit on tho ground that the notice to quit stated that possession must bo given within a month. However, according to tho Property Law Act, the notice should have read “ that possession bo given in one month.” The sectioq, of tho Act dealing with this point stated: “It there is a tenancy and no agreement as to its duration then such tenancy shall, be deemed to he a tenancy determinable at tho will of either of the parties bv one month’s notice in writing.” There was a difference between the notice plaintiff had given and the notice required by the Act. This defence had not been raised for the purpose of obstructing plaintiff, but m theso days of shortage of houses it was necessary for people to catch at any straw to savo their families from being turned out on tho street.

Tho Magistrate upheld Mr Sargent’s contention and nonsuited plaintiff and ordered him to pay costs. Mr Ouniugliam: We shall give defendant a month’s notice to quit .to-day.