THE HOUSING ACT.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLVII, Issue 15543, 11 June 1921, Page 3

THE HOUSING ACT.

SEVERAL APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH. • In the Magistrate’s Court this morning Mr. J. S. Barton, S.M., delivered three judgments in connection with cases previously heard under the terms of the Housing Act, 1920. The first case disposed of was an application by William Fierichs to have the rents increased of a flat, in particular to C'has. Stewart; and Bertie Wallace. The case was one in which an increase in rent in respect to a flat in a large and valuable building in Wainui road was desired. The Government valuation was £2OOO, and £760 unimproved. Since 1914 the applicant had affected alterations to the house amounting to £7OO. Stewart occupied a suite of two rooms and a kitchenette at £1 Is per week, and the other objector, Wallace, for three rooms nad a kitchenette, paid rent at £1 8s 6,1 weekly. In delivering judgment the Magistrate said he had taken advantage of the provisions of the Act. In 1914 the house was a 14-roomed boardinghouse, and at present, after alterations had been effected, it comprised six sets of flats. Applicant was only entitled to rent on the basis of funished flats, on the value at 1914, plus the expenditure in {iterations. On the out-goings the applicant was entitled after 7 per cent, had been deducted, of receiving a total rent for the flats of £8 weekly. Stewart’s rent was fixed at £1 Is 6d, an increase of 6d. and that of the other objector, Wallace, at £1 10s 6d per week, an increase, plus 10 per cent., making it £1 -14 s 6d. an Increase of ss. Mr. L. T. Barnard appeared for the applicant at the hearing, and Mr Wauchop for the objectors.

The next case was one concerning an application for an increase in rent in respect of a four-roomed house, owned by Albert Hacclie, and tenanted by James Boniface. The rent was 15s weekly. The Magistrate, in his judgment, .stated that he had inspected the house in question, and fixed the capital value at £535; 7 per cent, on that, together with rates at £3 ss, insurance £2 10s, painting and repairs £ls, and deprec.iur tion, entitled the owner to a rent per annum of £63 ss. or £1 5s per week. His Worship said that the house was not in too clean a condition, and it would be unreasonabe to ask the landlord to bear the expense of repairs necessary. If the house was repaired at the request of the teiiant, it would have to be at bis expense, and yet before another tenant went into occupation the house would have to be renovated. Judgment was given accordingly. At the hearing of the case, Mr. L. T. Bumard appeared for the applicant, and Mr. Smith for the objector.

Judgment was delivered oil the case of L. C. Arthur v. J. O’Dwyer, a claim for possession of a four-roomed house in Grey street, on the ground that the superior lease from the Druids to the plaintiff had expired and he had to lemove the building at the expiration of the lease.

His Worship said lip had seen the house, which was of three rooms and a lean-to It was situated on a small piece of land, about 90ft. in depth. He could not possibly give possession for the purposes of the removal of the house. After considering all the facts and figures he would access the ’ rent at 15s per week, and that was high for such a small house.

At the hearing Mr. Coleman appeared for the applicant, and Mr. Wauchop for the objector. Mr. Wauchop then asked His Worship if he held that the increase cnly was applied after the day of the judgment. His Worship held that that was not so. It was purely a matter of contract between the parties, and if the increase was not fixed by agreement, an application could be made to the Court for assessment of Increase.