LITIGATION OVER HOUSES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVIII, Issue 17802, 8 June 1921, Page 5

LITIGATION OVER HOUSES.

PURCHASER AND VENDOR.

DAMAGES FOR NON-POSSESSION.

A claim for £18 10s damages arising from a purchaser of a house being onable to secure possession, was the subject of a reserved decision by Mr. E. C. Cutten, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court yesterday. The plaintiff was Robert Dunn Head (Mr. Taylor)»merchant, and the defendant, Arthur Walters (Mr. Dickson), bootmaker. The parties entered into an agreement under which plaintiff agreed to purchase, and the defendant agreed to 6ell a house. Plaintiff was to get vacant possession on a date agreed upon, There was a tenant in the house. Defendant- gave the tenant notice to quit, and took proceedings to have the tenant ejected, but the Court, acting under the provisions of the War Legislation, refused to make an order. Defendant was therefore unable to give possession, and the plaintiff claimed, by way of damages, the expenses he had been put to. The magistrate said the position was hard for both parties. The defendant had to pay commission on the sale, and the expenses of the proceedings to* eject the tenant. He had also returned to plaintiff the deposit paid. Plaintiff," claimed that the failure to complete and give him possession was a breach of the The position taken up by the defendant was that the refusal of the .Court to make an order made the execution of the contract by him impossible, and that in these circumstances he was not liable for any damages. The magistrate was of opinion that it was clear to both parties that the plaintiff's object in buying was to get possession, and the defendant with a full knowledge of the present position of the law agreed to give vacant possession. It must be taken therefore, that defendant undertook the responsibility of giving possession. Plaintiff was entitled to reasonable damages to cover the expenses to which he had been put. Judgment was for plaintiff for £8 _10s and costs.

TENANT DECLINES TO VACATE.

COURf REFUSES AN ORDER. An application for possession of a house in Union Street, together with a claim for £37 16s rent alleged to be due, came before Mr. J. W. Poynton, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court yesterday. Plaintiff purchased the house last September, the defendant then being the tenant. Plaintiff gave defendant verbal notice to quit, and endeavoured to find her a suitable house. Eventually plaintiff secured premises which defendant agreed to take. In consideration of the inconvenience which defendant would be caused in vacating the housej plaintiff paid a month's rent, ,£l7, for the new premises and gave defendant the key. Next day defendant returned the key and refused to vacate the house. The rent was formerly £1 10s a week. In January, plaintiff raised the rent to £2 2s. Notice to quit had been served, and plaintiff claimed that defendant was £37 16s in arrears. Defendant had paid £20 into Court, and was prepared to pay the amount which the Court ordered, but it was contended that the notice raising the rent was not effective. Defendant was a married woman "with five children. Her husband was a returned soldier, who admitted that plaintiff had acted very fairly in endeavouring to find a bouse for him, but stated that the premises secured by the plaintiff were quite unsuitable. "Che magistrate refused the order for possession, and gave judgment for £27 less the amount paid into Court, being rent for 18 weeks at £1 10s a week.