HOUSING CASE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXVI, Issue 23284, 1 March 1939, Page 12

HOUSING CASE

SUB-TENANTS SUED QUESTION OF POSSESSION OWNERS ALLEGE TRESPASS [BY TELEGRAM —PRESS ASSOCIATION] DUNEDIN, Tuesday Some time ■ ago Joshua Crombie Mewliinney and his sister, Letitia Mary Mewhinney, lot a tenement to Lancelot Robert Jordan, who irr August of last year sub-let rooms. On January 4 last Jordan vacated. the tenement and tho owners made arrangements for,- other tenants to take over the premises, but the sub-tenants were still'in possession ,of their .part of tho houso and still occupy it. Tho problem of whether a landlord can regain possession of a whole tenement or whethor the provisions of the Fair Rents Act, which cover the house as a whole, cover tho part occupied by sub-tenants was raised when the owners proceeded against Alexander MacDonakl and his wife, Nancy MacDonald, in the Magistrate's Court before Mr. J. R. Bartholomew, S.M. They claimed to recover possession of the tenement.

Mr. R. H. Simpson appeared for plaintiffs and Mr. 6. T. Bayleo for defendants. Counsel pointed out that the case was an unusual one nnd was of vital interest to sub-tenants and landlords throughout the Dominion. Decision Reserved . After lengthy and involved legal argument the magistrate reserved his decision. Tho statement of claim alleged that defendants occupied the tenement as trespassers. The house had been let by plaintiffs to Lancelot Jordan at a weekly rental of £1 ss. During August, 1938, Jordan sub-let rooms in the houso to defendants, in which action plaintiffs were not consultod. Jordan arranged with plaintiffs to give up possession of the house on January 4 last and plaintiffs had therefore arranged with others a fresh tenancy of tho house from January 4 and made themselves liable to give vacant possession on that date. It was alleged that on January 4 defendant Nancy Mac Donald, by means of false and fraudulent misrepresentation to Jordan that it had oeen .so arranged between defendants and plaintiffs, had procured a key from Jordan and general possession of the house. Since January 7 4 defendants had retained possession of the house without any agreement arrived at with plaintiffs and without any recognition of tenancy from plaintiffs. Plaintiffs claimed £9 19s as damages, £6 5s as "rent from January 4 to February 8, and £3 14s aa general damages. Fair Stents Act Mr. Baylee said that the defence in the case was twofold, first from the matter of law and secondly that the Fair Rents Act applied. The crux of the matter was that Jordan _ by an agreement with _ plaintiffs decided to give up possession of the house on January 4, but had already accepted rent up to January 6 from defendants. The Mac Donalds were lawfully in possession at that stage. Plaintiff had refused to tako rent from defendants, as he did not recognise their tenancy. It could not be suggested that defendants were trespassers, as they were there by right in the first instance.