SOMEWHERE TO LIVE

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVII, Issue 10838, 2 March 1921, Page 4

SOMEWHERE TO LIVE

THE HOUSE SHORTAGE MAGISTRATE DECIDES ON MATTERS OF HARDSHIP. QUESTIONS OF DEGREE. Pitiful tales of alleged hardship Were unfolded before Mr F. K. Hunt, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday when the customary batch of tenement eases were taken. “Hardship” was the ground on which a returned soldier sought to recover the possession ,of a bouse which he had purchased and to which he intended to bring his three children and aged mother from the country. He was particularly desirous of getting possession as he intended to get married again. He made the purchase of the house because it was the only place procurable by paying a small deposit. For the present tenant, a married man with a wife and child of eight years, it- was stated that he was a builder and was building a house for himself as well as two others for different people. Naturally it would be some time before he could get out . His Worship found that the balance of hardship lay on the man with three children and ordered possession to bo given to the returned soldier in .one month. “WELL TREATED.” The next case contained the usual question of whether a tenant had actually made an agreement with .the landlord. It was stated that the tenant had been engaged by the landlord to work for him and had offered him accommodation at a rental of £1 a week. He was to commence work in a fortnight, it being necessary to give notice to his previous employer, and m the meantime he was allowed to go into the premises. However, at the end of the fortnight it was stated that the man had been made a better offer of employment and had. not commenced with the owner of the house and had refused to quit the premises. Then it was stated that the rent had been increased to £2 per week when notice to quit was tendered. “The' fact remains that the tenant agreed to work for the owner, then got into the premises, and now refuses to get out,” said His Worship. “I think the man has been uncommonly well treated.” It was stated that the tenant had a wife and two young childien and could get no other accommodation. His Worship fixed the rent at £1 weekly and ordered the tenant to vacate the premises in one month’s time.

ANOTHER QUESTION OF COMPARISON.

In another claim for possession, the plaintiff, a labourer who had bought the property from another party last year, wanted the house to accommodate his own family, which comprised a wife and three children. He gave notice to quit to the tenants, which notuce should have expired on _ January 22nd. The tenants were paying £1 per ween "when the owner took over the property. Later, however, the tenants had only paid 15s per week. For the defendant it was stated that hardship undoubtedly lay on the defendant, who* had a wife and her father (who was an old taauj to protect. The income between them only amounted to about £6 per week. The question of the waiving of the notice, the defendant claimed, was decided hy rthe fact that the landlord had accepted the rent of 15s weekly. . His Worship held that the man with three children had a better claim to the premises, and in regard tp the rent no claim had been made. He ordered possession to he surrendered to the owner in one month.

LANDLORD WANTS HIS RENT. ‘ What do you want to turn her put for?” asked His Worship of another who was desirous of obtaining the arrears in rent rather than possession. The present tenant, a widow with seven children, acoounted for the arrears in rent -by the fact that the*plaintiff, the owner, had not carried out repairs to the premises. Further it was contended that the rent asked was too much. It was stated that the owner had several houses. . . , , As there was an application made to reduce the rent His Worship adjourned the case for a fortnight.