POSSESSION OF HOUSES

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVIII, Issue 17691, 28 January 1921, Page 6

POSSESSION OF HOUSES

POSITION OF RETURNED MEN.

COMMENT BY MAGISTRATE.

" ACT GOING BACK ON THEM."

A striking illustration of the way in which the provisions of the War Regulations Act, in respect to the tenancy of dwelling houses by discharged soldiers, may possibly react to the detriment of the interests of the very people it is intended to protect, was given in the Magistrate's Court yesterday. The case >n question, heard before Mr. J. \V. Poynton, 8.M., was one in which a returned soldier sued for possession bf a house in Ariki Street, Grey Lynn. Plaintiff, who had a wife and two children, had bougnt the house on his return from the front; but the tenant* refused to leave, on the ground that the husband of defendant was a returned soldier also. The latter had been incapacitated at the war, and had three children. Plaintiff alleged that the house was neglected by the tenants and its condition was going from bad to worse. He had put all nis savings in the house, and submitted it would bo a hardship if he was refused possession. Counsel for the defence, Mr. Sullivan, contended that as defendant was a returned soldier the Court had no power to make an order for possession, as section 13 of the War Regulations Act precluded the dispossession of a soldier tenant against his will. Mr. Houston, for plaintiff, submitted that clause 13 was provisional upon the tenant taking reasonable care of the dwelling and ensuring it from waste. The magistrate said that what evidence of neglect there was appeared to show that such neglect was unavoidable. Plaintiff, however, was a thrifty, industrious man, and had saved sufficiently to purchase a house. It was unfortunate that the Act. prevented an order for possession being made. " A man who saves up his money and buys a house is worthy of consideration—l don't care what the Act says.'' said Mr. Poynton. " I am afraid the Act. goes too far." Mr. Houston : "It is a hard law, and an unjust law." The Magistrate : " It was made to protect the returned soldier, but it is now going so far that it is doing a serious injury to him." Mr. Poynton said, further, that things had come to such a pass that owners of houses were shy of accepting returned soldiers as tenants, fearing that, once in their dwellings, they might never go out. In this way returned soldiers might be handicapped. " This Act," ne said. " was passed in order to ameliorate the conditions of living in favour of returned men, hut it 18 now going back on them. It discourages thrift, for it mayprevent a man who has saved sufficient money to buy a house from entering into his possession. It is such cases as these, however, that may lead to the Act being amended.'' The order for possession was refused, costs £2 14s being allowed defendant.