POSSESSION OF HOUSES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVIII, Issue 17784, 18 May 1921, Page 8

POSSESSION OF HOUSES.

| UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES. TENANT LETS UNOCCUPIED HALF. The owner of an apartment house, who sought an order of the Magistrate's Court for possession of a portion of the house, failed yesterday to obtain it because of an interesting restriction in the law. The action, which was one for possession and for £50 damages for alleged illegal occupation, was brought before Mr. J. W. Poynton, S.M. Plaintiff, in evidence, said that, half of her apartment house in Elizabeth Street, Ponsonby, was let to a tenant, the other half being vacant for 6omo time. She recently decided to sell the house for £750, *but heard that defendant, a stranger to her, was living in the other half. She understood the tenant had sub-let the rooms to him. The tenant, however, had no right to do so, as he was not occupying the whole house. He paid 30s a week rental for his half. Defendant contended that he was in possession of the rooms under a tenancy from the who he had understood to be in possession of the whole house. The whole trouble, he said, was that there was feeling between the owner and tenant. Mr. Quartlev, for defendant, sought a non-suit on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to make an order for possession. The Magistrate's Court Act, 1908, provided that the civil jurisdiction of ■ the Court included "the recovery or possesion of tenements (1) where the claim is alleged to have arisen in the determination of a tenancy or occupation with a rental not exceeding the rate of £210 by the year; (2) in other cases where the value of the tenement does not exceed £200." The present case, said counsel, did not fall under (1), because plaintiff contended that defendant was a trespasser, and not a tenant, nor under (2), because plaintiff had stated in evidence that she intended to sell the house for £750. The magistrate upheld this contention, and the application for an order was refused. Plaintiff was unfortunate, said Mr. Poynton, as defendant was clearly a trespasser. The tenant had no right to let the rooms in questioa, but that had nothing to do with the present action. Plaintiff's only recourse was to take the case before the Supreme Court. The only satisfactory way to deal with a case of trespass was to summon the offender under the Police Offences Act for failing to vacate premises when warned to do so. The possession of a boarding house was sought by the owner in another case heard by Mr. Poynton. The plea of hardship was advanced by both sides. Plaintiff was a widower who had a daughter-in-law and her children dependent on him. Cross-examined plaintiff said the daughter-in-law was then living with an aunt in Feilding. The tenant, an unmarried woman, said she depended upon the boarding house for her living. She was maintaining a sister with the latter's invalided husband and their two children, while another sister dependant on her had been an invalid for 18 years. The defence contended that if possession was granted to plaintiff these people would be left without the means of livelihood. Possession was refused. * Possession of a house in Balmoral Road, Mount Eden, was sought by trio owner on the ground of hardship. He was at present living in his mother-in-law's fiveroomed house, in which were three other people besides himself, his wife, and his five children. The tenant was living with his wife, three small children, and an aunt, and the house contained six rooms Gross-examined, the tenant said he was a carpenter and could build a house for himself if he had the material. The aa". month made order f° r possession in D a