WHAT IS A FAIR RENT?

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLVII, Issue 15465, 9 March 1921, Page 5

WHAT IS A FAIR RENT?

INTERESTING CASES. ’ Three applications to increase rents were heard in the Magistrate’s Court this morning before Mr. J. S. Barton, S.M., and hi each case decision was reserved. The first case was one in which an ap- _ plication was made hv Smith (Mr. Barnard) to increase, the rent, of .a 10roomed house in Gladstone toad tenanted j £>y William Eobh (Mr. Kinder). 1 The case was taken under the Housing Amendment Act, 1920, which allows a ' landlord to have an increase in rent j granted, if the magistrate considers the rental too low. The applicant • stated that the struc ’ tnre tv as a 10-roomed house, built of kauri, 25 years ago. The present rent was 255. a week, and lie had been ott'erj ed £2 10s per week by a lady who wished to use it ns a hoarding house.. The • applicant owned section ,2t*> in Gladstone road, about a mile from the Post Office. 1 Hitherto lie. had paid 1)10 in rates, but. ! as the Government valuation had in creased from £350 to 1)660, he expected > to liavo to pay an increased rate • shortly. The house required a good b deal of repairing, also repainting. It ) was built by himself .in 1895, of firstclass kauri, on a concrete foundation. 1 it was fitted up with all conveniences. It was still a good house. Hc (appli- ’ cant.) earned a living by chicken breed ' iiijj, and hoe farming, arid the . money ■ so derived went, towards the upkeep ol the house. Cross-examined by counsel for dcF fondant, plaintiff stated that he had ex- ' pended money in improvements since the ; present tenant had been in occupation. The garden had gone to rack and ruin since defendant had gone into flie house. Chas. (!. Bloore, land and estate agent, said he knew the property in ; question. Ho estimated the prehver value approximately at- £1250, on account of its position in the main street. There had always been a good demand or houses in this particular vicinity. Five or six years ago he would esti mate the unimproved value of.the pro; perty at £SCO, and the house £6so..Tin house was certainly in need of an overhaul. The land was easily drainable. Mr Kinder: Do you suggest, that the tenant should be loaded with additional rout? ... Witness : • Well, the owner is losing. Witness added that- he considered that i the land was worth £lo’ per foot, Hr liad not. inspected the house inside, bu! lie placed a value of about £750 on tin house at the present time. It was oi a good solid foundation, and repairs could be effected for £IOO. The house generally- was substantially in good order. Christopher Picsse, another land agent, said lie liad sold several houses in the .vicinity before the war at. from £BSO to over £IOOO. -The area of lanu was a quarter of an acre, but in each case the houses were not of 10 rooms. Witness placed the pre-war value at £I3OO. The house .was too .large for. the ordinary man,, and was useful as a hoarding house. Mr Kinder asked his Worship if lie would inspect the house himself. Hi.-; Worship said he was not disposed to do that, and advised Mr Kinder to bring evidence in rebuttal. Counsel for defendant said that, lie would admit the evidence given, but added that defendant ■ was a married man with eight children, and was i:. receipt of a salary of £4 16s weekly. His Worship ; said Parliament had fixed a hasis of rental, and he 'though-' there would have to be an increase; A ' the present rental, if the landlord hat the place done up, at a cost of £IOO, lit would not get anything for. two years. .His Worship reserved his decision. .Judgment is to be given at 10 a.m. ori Friday. THE SECOND CASE. Another Tbse of a similar nature wa. then taken by Mr. Barton, S.M. An application by, \\’ G. A. Reynolds (Mr. Biifnard) was* made to increase the rent of .a seven-roomed house in btoi.: street, on a section of 30 perches, ten anted by W. Lissant Clayton (Mi. Nolan). The present rent was 235, mk the applicant* placed Ihe pre-war vahu of the premises at £llsO. Applicant said he bought the homn just before, the war at a valuation <. 3)1150, and it was then let at a fenta. of £1 12s per week. Mr. Clayton wa. now paying 23s rental. Plaintiff . ha. put in sewerage and water, supply, and the house, had been painted since' M: Clayton had been in occupation. ' An addition to ’a verandah, a sleeping porch, cost, about £SO. He paid rate) at £5 12s Cd, and insurance at £3 9s 4d. ' , ' '//. Cross-examined by Miv Nolan, plaintiff said he took the property in ox change. , The price, £llsO, did not take over a corner section, only .covered o perches of land. , Mr. Nolan: Did you not offer the property to . Mr. Clayton last year io £1900? ■ . j. Plaintiff said he did not remember', ‘ but said he-had an offer of £6OO fo. property at the rear of tho house. Chas. G. Bloore, kind agent; deposed that,, ho had inspected the'property foi | the purposes of pre-war valuation, an- 1 I he- would say, the house, could be valued I at £IOSO. - Last week witness had two, ‘ offers of £1450, but one buyer, on see • ing the interior of the house, reduced i the offer to £1350. , i i Defendant, in evidence said that since 'he had been in occupation he had installed electric light throughout, at a, cost of £3O. Counsel for defendant brought, ov!-' dence to show that in 1915 the property was worth about £BSO, apportioned";at £6OO for tho, house and £250 for land. I Decision- was reserved. -« j ~, . A . “BREEZE” IN COURT., . , ; Tho-. third case under the Housing Amendment, Act was one in which Thos. D. .Fahey (Mr. lluniard) sought to have an increase made 1 * in the rent of a fiveroomed cottage tenanted by James I)o\v (Mr. -Finn). r * Thomas D. Fahey said he bought tileproperty as a speculation for £400; thevalue, in 19M was.'£34o/ He paid £2 8s 3d in rates, and £1 3s fid, for insurance. It was a fiverroomed bouse, situated oh .28 perches, and was being, rented at 15s per week, | Cross-examined,. plaintiff said he had asked 1.6 s per week when lie took, over the house. .The result was that defenj.dant paid him 15s, an increase of 2s 6-1 oil the rent) of 12s 6d which defendant .was paying when plaintiff bought the house, (Mr,- Finn,, to plaintiff: Have you ever been inside the house r.. Plaintiff: Yes. Mr. Finn (expressing surprise): When? Plaintiff : This moriiing) Mr.' Finn: What! While .Mr. and Mrs. Dow were waiting here at, tho. Court? Plaintiff: Yes. - Mr. Finn: Who let you in? Plaintiff: There. were some children there, . Mx\ Finn Yes, but you have no right to enter the house. Plaintiff : Well, I’m the owner. Mr. Finn: The very idea! You know . you did wrong. Did you take anything.' away with you? • Plaintiff: Of course, not. • * Mr. Finn: Well, you would be under suspicion if anything was missed. Later, when C. G. Piesso, land agent, was being cross-examined, Mr. Finn asked him if ho had seen the inside, of the house? Witness: Yes. i Mr; Finn: When? Witness: This morning, with the owner. Mr, Finn: Well, I never, the very idea! You lyaew that, both Mr. and Mrs. Dow were in Court when you went through the house? Witness: Yes, but I went through at. tho owner’s invitation, and there my responsibility ends. Mr. Finn: Well, Mr. Piesse, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. . The Magistrate, commenting, .said that plaintiff, although /being the owner of,tho house, had nd.right to enter in the absence of tho tenahts, without permission. It was not a fair thing, and the owner was in this ease a tresspasser. Mr. Finn: Yes, and Fahey being an cx-Magistrate’s Court clerk, should havo ( knpwn better. j , .. . (Proceeding.) <