FAIR RENT LAW

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXVI, Issue 23381, 24 June 1939, Page 20

FAIR RENT LAW

EEMUEBA PREMISES ACT NOT APPLICABLE COURT UPHOLDS MAGISTRATE A question of interpretation of the Fair Rents Act, IMG, was brought before the Supreme Court yesterday ill the form of an appeal against n decision of Mr. W. I\. McKean, S.M. The dwelling in dispute is a house at No. •"> Pukoora Avenue, Remuora. which was converted into two flats last year. On May 24 the landlord. Henry Sanson, farmer, of liaglan. asked the magistrate to determine the fair rent ol the house, but he declined to do so on the ground that ho had no jurisdiction, because the house was not a dwelling house within the meaning of the Act. The action before Mr. Justice Ostler yesterday was brought by Mrs. Annetta Esther Wilson, widow, of Auckland (Mr. Holmden), who asked for a writ of mandamus to compel Mr. McKean to hear the ease and determine the fair rent. The defendant, Henry Sanson (Mr. Wills), said Mr. McKean had held that the original dwelling house had been converted into flats, which was something essentially different from the original dwelling. As the flats were let for the first time separately after the passing of the Fair Wonts Act they were not subject to it, and he bad no jurisdiction.

Change into Flats His Honor said the house was originally subject to the Fair Rents Act. The whole question was whether its ■character had been changed by its being converted into two flats. Mr. Holmden said that, prior to the coming into effect of the I' air Rents Act, the house was let for £2 10s. In April, I!MS. alterations were made to it,, and in March last- it was let to plaintiff at £ t 10s. Counsel submitted that there was no suggestion that two flats were being let to her. It was the whole house that was let.

His Honor said the policy of the Act whs to exclude flats from it. . Mr. Wills submitted that the plaintiff was not the person entitled to a writ of mandamus. She was in the position (if defendant in the Magistrate's Court, and Sanson was the applicant. Dismissal of Petition In deciding to dismiss tho petition, His Honor said that the owner of the house had, in April, 39."i8, by an expenditure of over £IOO, converted the house into two separate flats. In May, 19'!S, the defendant rented one of the flats to the plaintiff at £2 a week, and the other flat was subsequently let to another tenant at £'2 10s. When that tenant vacated the flat the plaintiff look it over at a total rental of £1 10s. "Having thus become the tenant of both flats,"' continued His Honor, "the plaintiff then refused to pay the rent she had agreed to pay. claiming that she was subject to the Fair Rents Act, and that the basic rent was £'2 10s. She did, however, offer to pay £•'! 10s. notwithstanding that she was able to let the second flat at £2 10s." The owner declined to accept this breach of contract, and when he made appeal to the magistrate to fix the fair rent he held that the house was not subject to the Act. In His Honor's opinion, the magistrate was right upon the facts before him in finding that these were two flats, and not one dwelling house, and that, therefore, they were not subject to the Act. The action of the plaintiff in sub-letting the second fiat was an indication of what she intended, and she became the tenant of two flats and not of one house. He would dismiss the motion and allow defendant £2l costs and disbursements.