POSSESSION OF HOUSES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 18042, 17 March 1922, Page 3

POSSESSION OF HOUSES.

QUESTION OF Sl/B-LETTING. OYER-PAYMENT OF RENT. Judgment on a claim for possession ol a tenement on the ground that a portion of the premises had been sub-let at an unreasonable 1 rental, and on a counterclaim for £12 178 for rent alleged to have been overpaid, was given by Mr. J. W. Poynton, S'M., in the Magistrate's Court yesterday. He said that defendant -let four rooms out of six, and had averaged within about 10s of what he had paid as rent. The magistrate did not think this was "profiteering," and said he must refuse an order for possession. a The difficulty was in the counter-claim. A tenant who paid rent in excess of the standard rent could recover it. The rent was £1 7s 6d a week till July 81, 1921, when it wa6 increased to £1 17s' by agreement. In January a magistrate fixed it at £1 15s 6d. The owner contended the standard rent was that fixed by the Court, while the tenant oonsidered it to be £1 7s 6d. Mr. Poynton said he could not see bow he could consider any rent as a standard one except that fixed hy the Court. He therefore found that the overpayment was at the rate of Is 6d a week. Another difficulty was tiow far back a tenant conld go in suing for overpayments. Ho held that the interpretation of the Act was that tho rent recoverable whs that paid .not more than six months prior to the date of action, although if a large sum for back rent were paid within the six months it might be recov&rable. Judgment was for £10 9s 6<L The order for possession was refusisd. AN ORDER REFUSED. POSITION OF A COMPANY. Decision wa' given by Mr- >E. C, Cutten, S.M., in a tenement case in which a company claimed possession of a dwelling under the Housing Amendment Act, 1922, on the ground that .the premises were reasonably required by the landlord for his own occupation as a dwelling house. Mr. Culten said it was contended for the jplaintiff that as e, company could only act through its servants, and as it required the premises for the occupation as a dwelling by one of its servants, it might be said that the company reasonably required the premises for its own occupation as a dwelling house. | "A company cannot occupy premises as a dwelling nouse," said Mr.' Cutten. "What is wanted is the possession of these premises that they ma.y be occupied by one of the company's employees. That is not a ground upon which an order can be made. ! The order was refused. Security for i appeal was fixed at £10 10s,