HOUSING PROBLEM

Otago Daily Times, Issue 24698, 29 August 1941, Page 7

HOUSING PROBLEM

STATE’S RESPONSIBILITY IN QUESTION WOMAN’S UNFORTUNATE PLIGHT The question of the responsibility of the State Housing Department in the matter of providing a house for a woman with four young children who, by an order of the court, is to be clis* possessed of two rooms in which she is at present living, was raised in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, when Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M., resumed the hearing of a claim for possession brought by Leonard Richmond Ellis against Percv Cuff. M t J. C. Robertson appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr A. J. Haub. on behalf of the Labour Department. for Cuff. When the case first came before the court it was explained that Cuff, who was a cook in the Air Force, had. with his family, been living in two rooms rented to him bv the tenant of the house. In April last, this tenant left Dunedin, leaving the Cuffs in possession. Mrs Cuff wanted to take oyer the house, but Ellis wanted possession and would not accept rent, as that would class him as a landlord. When the case was called yesterday Mr Haub said that he had endeavoured to' secure alternative accommodation for Mrs Cuff and her children, but without success. The State Housing Department had no houses available, and was unable to hold out any hope In the meantime. Mrs Cuff was in an unfortunate position. She was willing to pay rent, but Ellis would not accept it. so that she was not a tenant and did not. therefore, come under the protection of the Fair Rents Act. “There, would seem to be a definite responsibility on the department in this case.” Mr Robertson said, “and it is its duty to rally ’■ound an'’’ get this woman a,house.” The magistrate: That is a question for the legislature. Unfortunately, the court has no Jurisdiction in the matter Mr Robertson agreed that it was unr fair to place the responsibility on the court, but confessed he was at a loss to why the department could not make a house available. “It seems ridiculous.” counsel added, “that State houses cannot be secured by persons who are unable to pay a certain rent.” 'v His Worship remarked that it was unfortunate that the defendant was not a tenant of the landlord, and could not., therefore, claim the. protection of the Act: It seemed very hard. buLhe had no alternative but to make an order for possession.

This magistrate directed that no warrant'shduld be issued for at least four weeks, and suggested that in the meantime the Labour Department might assist in securing a house for Mrs Cuff