FAIR RENTS ACT

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 155, 2 June 1937, Page 5

FAIR RENTS ACT

DEFINITION OF A LANDLORD. WELLINGTON. June 1. “I am satisfied that the plaintiff reasonably requires the residential portion for his own use and occupation, and that in the circumstances of the case he is entitled to ail order of possession if lie is a landlord within the meaning of the Fair Rents Act, 1936,” said Mr J. H. Luxford, S.M., Wellington, in his judgment on a case which hinged upon the definition of tho term “landlord.”. Described by the Magistrate as presenting several unusual features, the case was one in which C. A. Hart, tho defendant, became the monthly tenant of the residential portion of a combined shop and dwelling, under an agrement with the owner of the freehold. The owner subsequently entered into a contract with the plaintiff, J. M. Irving, to grant him a lease of the whole premises for a period ol' two years. The plaintiff entered into occupation of tho shop portion of the premises, and gave the defendant notice to quit tho residential portion as he required it for his own use. ‘The evidence establishes that the defendant acquired the premises and has retained them ever since for the purpose of carrying on his confectionery business in them,” said Mr Luxford in his judgment. “Where premises have been erected in a shopping area primarily for business purposes and the tenant resides on the premises in order properly to carry on his business there, the dominant purpose of the occupation is not residential.” Tho premises were found to he not under the protection of the Fair Rents Act, 1936, and the judgment held that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment for the amount claimed, with costs.