TENANCY OF A DWELLING

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18157, 31 January 1921, Page 6

TENANCY OF A DWELLING

WAR REGULATIONS ACT.

A STRIKING ANOMALY,

(From Odb Own Cobbespondent.)

AUCKLAND, January 28. A striking illustration of the way in which the provisions of the War Regulations Act in respect to the tenancy of dwell-ing-houses by discharged soldiers may pos-, sibly react to the detriment of the interests of many people it is intended to protect was given in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. The case in question, which was heard before Mr J. W. Poynton, S.M., was one in which a returned soldier sued for possession of a house in Grey Lynn. Plaintiff, who had a wife and two children, had bought the house on his return from the front, but the tenants refused to leave, on the ground that the husband of defendant was a returned soldier also. The latter had been incapacitated at the war, and had three children. Plaintiff alleged that the house was neglected by the tenants, and its condition was going from bad to worse. He had put all his savings into the house, and he submitted that it would be a hardship if he was refused possession. Counsel for the defence (Mr Sullivan) contended that as defendant was a returned soldier the court had no power to make an order for possession, as section 13 of the War Regulations Act precluded the dispossession of a soldier tenant against his will. Mr Houston (for plaintiff) submitted that clause 13 was provisional upon the tenant taking reasonable care of the dwelling and ensuring it from waste. The Magistrate said that what evidence of neglect there was appeared to show that such neglect- was unavoidable. Plaintiff, however, "as a thrifty, industrious man, and had save sufficient to purchase the house. It was unfortunate that the Act prevented an order for possession being made. A man who saved up his money and bought a house was worthy of consideration. “I don’t care what the Act says,” said Mr Poynton. “I am afraid the Act goes too far ”

Mr Houston: It is a hard law and an unjust law. The Magistrate: It was made to protect the returned soldier, but it is rfow going so far that it is doing serious injury to him. Mr Poynton said further that things had come to such a pass that the owners of houses were shy of accepting returned soldiers as tenants, fearing that-once in their dwellings they might never go out. In this way returned soldiers might be handicapped. This Act. he said, was passed in order to ameliorate the conditions of living in favour of returned men, but it was now going back on them. It discouraged thrift, for it might prevent a man who had saved sufficient money to buy a house from entering into his possession. It was such cases as these, however, that might lead to the Act being amended.

The order for possession was refused, costs amounting to £2 I4s being allowed defendant.