FAIR RENTS ACT

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume 80, 25 May 1945, Page 3

FAIR RENTS ACT

QUESTION OF ITS APPLICATION DECISION RESERVED IN CLAIM FOR POSSESSION A claim for possession of a portion of the premises known as “Mayroyd” was heard before Mr T. E. Maunsell, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court yesterday, in the case Florence V. Milner (Mr W. V. Rout), v. Sybil G. Mackersey (Mr H. G. Brodie). Mr Rout explained that the action was taken to obtain possession of part of the building known as “Mayroyd.” It wa« claimed that the Fair Rents Act did not apply because the premises were occupied by Mrs Mackersey for the purpose of housing her staff from Wainui House. The property was bought four years ago by Mr Frank Milner, but nothing was done till ihe beginning of last year, when he decided that he would go into occupation. From February onwards there were interviews with regard to obtaining possession, but nothing very definite was done because defendant said she had difficulty in getting other accommodation. It culminated in notice to quit being served toward the end of the year. Mrs Milner went into occupation in January of this year. She was only able to occupy her own bedroom, another small bedroom, a dining room, a drawing room and a small kitchen. Mrs Milner was practically confined to the house with a compan-ion-help and now needed another woman to help. The position was complicated because two sons of Mrs Milner were shortly due back from overseas and there was no accommodation for them. In addition, another was due to arrive from Australia later. So the question of hardship was a great one. Evidence in support of counsel's statement was given by Charles Riddick, of the District Public Trust Office, William S. Milner, retired solicitor, and Mary Ellen Trafford, plaintiff's companion-help. Mr Brodie quoted the law on the definition of a dwellinghouse in the Fair Rent Act and said that defendant was in occupation, because possession by occupation by a servant was possession by the master. He contended that, although the defendant was not actually living in the house her servants were and occupation by them was her possession, ii was a dwelling house within the meaning of the Act and defendant was protected although not residing in it. Evidence was given by defendant, proprietor of Wainui House, that four girls of her staff were housed at “Mayroyd.’’ Witness paid the rent for the premises and something was deducted from the girls’ wages for the accommodation provided. Defendant was cross-examined as to the accommodation at Wainui House. She said that there were usually six girls at “Mayroyd.” The girls did not like sharing a room. Mr Rout replied to points of law raised by Mr Brodie. He contended that the premises were only sleeping quarters for the maids and were not used for residential purposes. They were not a dwelling-house witjf.in the meaning of the Act. The magistrate reserved his decision.