HOUSE SHORTAGE

Northern Advocate, 1 December 1925, Page 6

HOUSE SHORTAGE

sm\\TroN ix hikeraxgi

CLAIMS FOR POSSESSION.

Amongst the civil actions at the Hikurangi Courthouse on Monday two claims for possession of houses were heard before Mr R. W. Tate, S.M.

The first was the claim of Henry Jackson (Mr Carruth) for possession of premises in King Street occupied by Katie Eliza Spark (Mr Briggs). The sum of £8 10s was also claimed for nine weeks' rent at £.1 per week, less 10s paid on account. The plaintiff stated that the premises, comprising a shop and dwelling, had been leased to Mr Simms, a bootmaker, who required possession in order to carry on business. A month's notice to quit Avas served upon the defendant on. September 26 last. Mr Briggs stated that the defence was depending upon the Rent Restriction Act of 1916. In regard to the increase of 9s a week, which defendant had previously been paying, to that of £1 which the plaintiff made, counsel contended that no notice of such increase had been given. Jackson bought the place for £450 and the Government valuation in 1921 was £400. Eight per cent, on this would be £36 and the difference between that and £52 would be £16, which Avas j greatly in excess of the amount claimed for rent. The defendant was thus really in credit. The plaintiff was not entitled to an increase in the rent until he gave notice, stating the repairs effected and so Mr Briggs . pointed out that plaintiff did not claim possession because the rent w r as in arrears and contended that the wrong form of procedure had been used in the form of the claim. His Worship reserved his decision. TRIED TO GET A HOUSE. In the second case the grounds of the claimant, Frances Dobson v Mr Woods), was that she wanted for her own use the premises in Valley Road occupied by James McDonnell (Mr Carruth). Plaintiff also claimed £6 10s for 13 weeks' rent at 10s a week. Mr Carruth said that it was impossible for the defendant to get another place in Hikurangi. McDonnell had always paid his rent up to the time it had been refused. He submitted that in view of the difficulty of getting houses it would be unfair to make an order against the defendant. The defendant said he went into possession of the house in February of last year. When he got the notice tc quit he made efforts to get another house. He had no desire to stay in the premises, because they were in an insanitary condition. Cross-examined by Mr Woods defendant said that he did not stv he would move out by order of the Court. He had not knocked the place about, but had improved it to the extent of i pasting paper over the ratholes. I His Worship said he thought there | was no doubt the plaintiff was entitled j to possession of the house. In reply to Mr Carruth'"s plea that , defendant would be turned out of the j house without any other to go to, the I Magistrate said that it was a disadvantage under which every tenant laboured, except so far as he* was protect- ' ed by the Rent Restriction Act. j Mr Carruth said that he did net dis- I pute the right to possession, but asked for some condition whereby defendant could get a house. j Decision was reserved. j