POSSESSION OF HOUSE REFUSED

Northern Advocate, 1 December 1936, Page 6

POSSESSION OF HOUSE REFUSED

JUDGMENT FOR ARREARS OF RENT

Protection under the Fair Rents Act was claimed at the Whangarei Magistrate’s Court this morning in a case in which possession of a house an the payment of arrears of rent were asked The plaintiff was Margaret Ann Holmes (Mr. L. T. Pickmere), executrix of the late Mr. J. E. Holmes, and the defendant Steve Hughes (Mr. »• L. Ross), of Russell Road, Whangarei. Plaintiff claimed, as the executrix of J. E. Holmes, to recover possession of a dwelling occupied by the defendant, and situated in Russell Road, the' rent payable in respect of tms house being 38 weeks in arrears. Plaintiff also claimed £l9 for rent due and unpaid, being at the rate of 10/- a week from February 23. 193 G, to November 4, 1936.

Rent, 10/- A Week. T. H. M. Stewart, an officer of the Bank of New Zealand, said the bank had been collecting the rent. This was on a weekly tenancy of 10/- a week and the arrears were £ 19Notice of the intention to take this action had been given.

Mr Ross: How long has the rent been' 10/- a week? —As long as I can remember, except when Hughes was ill and three weeks in every four were charged. This continued until March 20, 1934. From then on, the rent has been 10/- a week. On March 20, 1934, there was £lO 10/- arrears and £8 10/- since then.

Mr. Ross: Why do you want to put the tenant out?

Witness: He is not paying the rent and we think the house is worth more than we are receiving for it. Mr. Ross: You know that you can’t increase the rent under the Fair Rents Act without going through several processes of the law? In reply to Mr. Pickmere, witness said the interior of the house had been kept in good order, but the grounds had not.

Mr. Ross said the action was opposed under the Fair Rents Act, introduced last session, to define the position between landlords and tenants. The Court had to take into consideration any hardship which might be caused to the tenant or landlord, and may refuse an application. In House For Over Eight Years.

Mr. Ross drew attention to the fact that Hughes had been in the house for eight years seven months, and his arrears of £l9 had accrued over that period, part of which he had been on relief work during the depression years. The smallness of the arrears testified to Hughes’ uprightness, and the magistrate knew from his own experience that large arrears were common in many cases.

The arrears arose when Hughes met with an accident and was incapacitated for seven months, receiving only 30/- a week insurance. At present he was employed in a colliery, where his average earnings were £3 16/- a week. As an indication of his bona tides in reference to the arrears, Hughes had written to Mr. Pickmere on November 24, offering: £lO at the rate of £1 a month to settle. This was not accepted. Designed To Increase Rent.

An examination of the rent book showed that he had paid with regularity, and the present action was one designed to increase the rent, which was at present prohibited by the provisions of Section 5 of the Fair Rents Act. The rent could not be increased unless by the determination of the Court in fixing what was considered to be a fair rent.

Mr. Ross said he intended to bring evidence to show that there would be hardship to the tenant, owing to the shortage of other houses of the type wanted by Hughes. Mr. Ross claimed that the tenant had paid the rent within the meaning and spirit of Section 13 of the FailRents Act, and also that there would | be hardship on the grounds of his long occupancy; the fact that the arrears had accrued in the depression; owing to the acute house shortage; and. as the building belonged to the Bank of New Zealand, there would be no hardship to the landlord. R. U. Harden, manager of the rent department of Thomson and Bagley Ltd., said that there had been a keen shortage of houses in Whangarei and he only had one at £1 and another at 30/-. Fair Rental. | Mr. Pickmere: What would you say j was a fair rental for this house? I Witness said he had not seen the j house, but thought about 17/6 a week,! in view of the shortage. ! Hughes gave evidence on the lines outlined by Mr. Ross. He said he was prepared to pay the arrears if given time to pay. With the exception of repairs to the sewerage and £2 given by the late Mr. Holmes for papering, he had done all the necessary repairs. Mr. Ross re-called Stewart, who said j the Holmes estate received the money. I Mr. Ross: The Holmes estate is j heavily encumbered with the bank? Witness: Yes. Mr. Ross: Actually the bank own the property? j Witness: I wouldn’t say that. > Mr. Ross: You are going to make a I loss on the Holmes estate account. j Witness: We don’t know that yet. j

Mr. Pickmere said that if Mr. Ross’ argument was followed tnere would

be no getting a tenant out for arrears of rent. The present action was brought under the ordinary law, apart from the Fair Rents Act. In this case 38 weeks were in arrears, and Mr. Ross tried to make out that this was a reasonable amount, despite the fact that the rent was only 10/- a week, and it had to be remembered that the rent was not a reasonable one. Mr. Harden said that it should be about 17/6.

The magistrate, Mr G. N. Morris. S.M.: I have no power to fix the rent in this application.

Mr Pickmere: Yes, but we asked him to pay only a reasonable rent. It was reduced from 15/- to 10/- and in consideration Hughes should have kept the rent paid up.

Possession Refused.

Mr. Pickmere said Hughes had made an offer to pay half the arrears at £ 1 a month, but that would only bring the total payment to 15/- a week, which was less than what the house was worth in rent alone. He submitted that hardship through the house shortage should not be taken into account. Hughes had not tried to get another house. It was also not a fact that the house belonged to the Bank of New Zealand. It was exceedingly doubtful if it ever would and it was more than likely that the Holmes estate would get some benefit.

Mr. Morris said that, as far as Hughes was concerned, he did not appear to be on ordinary case of a bad tenant. It was obvious that he had endeavoured to keep the house in repair by his own work.

It seemed also that he had been paying regularly for some months. Mr. Morris said he would refuse the application for possession, but gave judgment for £l9, and he suggested that Hughes might pay this at the rate of 5 - a week as he had offered. If the owners were still dissatisfied * they could take proceedings for the adjustment of the rent. Probablv the rent was low. Costs totalled £3.