CLAIM FOR RENT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23974, 24 November 1939, Page 12

CLAIM FOR RENT

APPEAL DISMISSED MAGISTRATE'S VIEW UPHELD The decision of Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M., in the case in which he gave Wholesalers. Ltd., judgment for £BB 4s 4d as arrears of rent for a bakehouse in Maclaggan street let to Albert Frederick Wootton has been upheld by the Supreme Court. This is shown in a reserved judgment delivered yesterday by his Honor Mr Justice Ostler in which he dismissed the appeal made against the magistrate's decision, with costs (£9 9s). At the hearing of the appeal in the Supreme Court last month Mr J. C. Robertson appeared for the appellant, Wootton, and Mr W. F. Forrester for the respondent company. In his judgment his Honor stated that the premises were originally let on August 1, 1931, on an oral months tenancy of £7 lis 8d per calendar month. The National Expenditure Adjustment Act, 1932, provided inter alia for a 20 per cent, reduction in rents, but as the contract between the parties had been made after January I, 1930, the reduction was noj; automatic, and in the absence of agreement between the parties as to what the rent would have been it was to be fixed by a magistrate. The appellant, who claimed that he was entitled to a 20 per cent, reduction, never took steps to have this hypothetical rent fixed, however, and was continually in arrears with his rent, a state of affairs which continued after a new contract providing for a 5 per cent, reduction in rent had been made in 1934 and arrangements had been made for extra payment to wipe off arrears. Following a claim by the respondent company in the Magistrate's Court this year for arrears of rent amounting to £9B 12s 4d, the magistrate held, in an interim judgment, that the appellant was entitled to a 20 per cent, reduction in rent under the National Expenditure Adjustment Act. but only after the hypothetical rent had been fixed by a magistrate. On application being made the hypothetical rent was fixed at £1 17s 6d a week, and when some days later the magistrate gave final judgment for the respondent company he held that before the hypothetical rent had been fixed all rentals paid by the appellant had been lawfully appropriated by the respondent company to the payment of the rent, except rent in excess paid within three months. He. therefore, deducted that amount, calculated at £lO Bs, and gave judgment for the respondent company for £BB 4s 4d. Supporting the magistrate's view, his Honor said that until the appellant had the hypothetical rent fixed he had no right to any reduction, and while he was paying the higher rent the respondent company had the right to receive and appropriate it. Another ground on which the magistrate could have disposed of the case was that the agreement by which the rent was reduced by 5 per cent, in 1934, as it was entered into after April 1. 1932, was not within the Act at all. and under that contract the appellant was not entitled to any deduction.