TENANT AND LANDLORD.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19502, 10 June 1925, Page 12

TENANT AND LANDLORD.

POSSESSION OF A HOUSE. MISREPRESENTATION CASE TEX ANT AWARDED DAMAGES. A case in which it 1 was alleged hy a foimcr tenant that a landlord obtained possession of bis house bv fraudulent misrepresentation came before the Cord Chief Justice and a special jury in the King's Bench Divis’on, London, reconi]}'. The action was brought by Mr Louis French, against Mr Walter Lowen and his wife, Mrs Phoebe Lower, claiming damages for alleged fraudulent misrepresentation. The defendants denied fraud and misrepresentation. The jury, without leaving the box, found for the plaintiff, and judgment was entered for him for £1.5(1. the agreed damages, and costa. The Lord Chief Justice said he proposed to call the attention of the Director of Public XVoaecntions to the case. Mr Harney, K.C., for the plaintiff, said that his client, a ship broker, was formerly tenant of a house owned by Mrs X.owen, The action was quite a new one under the Rent Restriction Act, 1923, by which the landlord could get possession of his house from a tenant if he could satisfy the County Court judge that he wanted to live in it himself or for his children. In the present case there was no order by the County Court judge. Mrs Lowen, continued counsel, said she wanted the house, and Mr French replied that he had three children and nowhere to go. She pressed for possession, saying that she wanted the house to live in. A few letters passed between the parties, and Mr French said: “It is no use hitting my head against a stone wall. I will go out.” So he moved out, stored his furniture, and went to a private hotel. He had not moved out very long when the defendants, instead of moving in, handed over the house to house agents to sell, and it was sold for a considerable sum of money. Under these circumstances Mr French asked for damages, as he was the statutory tenant of the premises at the time he gave up possession. Giving evidence. Mr French said be le r l the house in October, 1923, and he coul.l not find a house to rent in the neighbourhood, unless he bought and paid a premium. The rent of the house, when the 40 per cent, increase was added, .was .£ll2 a year, and rates and taxes. He estimated that the house and living expenses amounted to £750 a year. He now paid about £l4 a week at the boarding house where he was staying. Mrs’ Lowen, in answer to interrogatories put in by Mr Harney, said that she instructed estate agents at the end of October, 1923, to sell the house, and she sold it for £1570. Mr Hawke, K.C., for the defendants, submitted that there was no case to answer. His Lordship; Rot only is there a case for the jury, but I don’t understand how you are going to get over the letters of Mrs Lowen saying that she wanted the house for her own occupation. For the defendants, it was stated that Mrs Lowen was unable to go into the house because her health broke down. In cross-examination, Mrs Lowen said that her husband had been a bankrupt, and she thought he contemplated applying for his discharge about the middle of 1923. Rone of the. money obtained from the sale of the house was to be used on his behalf.