CLAIM FOR POSSESSION

Putaruru Press, Volume XX, Issue 1183, 23 May 1946, Page 4

CLAIM FOR POSSESSION

TENANTED COTTAGE A claim for possession of a tenanted cottage was lodged before Mr. W. H. Freeman, SjM., in the Magistrate’ll* Court, Putaruru, last week. Mr. J, Grahame appeared for the plaintiff, A. Schischka, of Putaruru, and stated that the cottage, which belonged to plaintiff, and which was situated on his property on the Tirau Road, was. needed for a ebaremilker Plaintiff had 'been running sheep on his property, but had recently sold part of it, and to make the remainder pay it would be necessary to go into dairying. Unless he could get the cottage he could hot get a sharemilker

, As wao required .by the Act, a' month’s notice was given the tenant, R. Andrews, but he had refused to accept the registered letter. Finally, plaintiff had' to deliver the letter personally.

It was a matter of hardship, said Mr. Grahame, for without the cottage plaintiff could not get a etoaremilker for his farm.

A. Schischka, in evidence, stated that he required the house for a sharemilker. iHe had almost got a man, but had lost him owing to the fact that defendant had not moved out of the house, and there was no house available for the oh a remilker. He had told defendant on many occasions that he would need the house. Defendant had refused to accept .the registered, letter of notice to quit, and he had had to deliver it to him personally. He had found defendant a very unsatisfactory tenant. The defendant, R. Andrew**, said that he was married, and had four children. He was driving a timber truck. He had tried all over Putaruru for a house, but had been unable to get one. Questioned about a broken window, he stated that one of his children had broken it. Regarding a statement made by plaintiff that the base boards around the houise had been removed, defendant denied that he had touched them. His wife had removed them- to get a hen and chickens under the house, and he did not know, what had happened to the boa~ds..

Mr. Grahame pointed out that any other house would do for defendant, but no other house would do for the plaintiff. The sharemilker would have to have a house on the farm. It was a question of who would suffer the most hardship. The Magistrate reserved his decision.