FAIR RENTS ACT OPPOSED

Southland Times, Issue 23675, 25 November 1938, Page 6

FAIR RENTS ACT OPPOSED

Owners Of Business Premises POSSIBLE EXTENSION CONDEMNED PETITION NOW IN WIDE CIRCULATION (Special to The Times) AUCKLAND, November 24. A plea to Parliament to recognize and continue their legal rights to hold and manage their properties free from ■any legislative restrictions is embodied in a petition now in wide circulation among property owners throughout the Dominion. It was stated today that this step had been taken in answer to another petition in which tenants urged that all forms of business premises should be placed under the Fair Rents Act.

The property owners’ petition is in two forms, one being signed by owners of freehold or leasehold estates in premises used for business purposes, including shops, warehouses, offices, factories, hotels, boardinghouses and residential flats. The signatories oppose any suggestion to bring business premises within the scope of the Fair Rents Act or similar legislation, contending that any such interference would be a violation of their titles as freeholders and lease-holders and that it would amount to partial confiscation. It is considered that the only way to determine a fair rental for business premises is to ascertain what in . the ordinary course of business a business man, firm or company is prepared to pay for them. Those engaged in business, it is added, are capable of handling their own affairs and of making their own contracts and nothing short of a grave national emergency affecting the well-being of the State could excuse interference by legislation with the sanctity of a private contract. “FULFILLED ITS PURPOSE” The second form of the petition is being signed by people interested as owners, lessees, mortgagees, tenants or shareholders of real property, or as ratepayers in cities, boroughs and towns. In urging the Government not to extend further the expiry date of the Fair Rents Act, the /petition states that the Act has fulfilled its purpose and any further extension would be an unjustified interference with private rights and freedom of contract. The operation of the legislation discouraged private building and prevented progress and the artificial restriction of rents reduced the rateable value of the properties affected and placed an undue burden of taxation on properties not affected. The Circulation of the petition is administered by a committee in Auckland and the organizer, Mr E. Bull, said that material evidence in its support would be placed before the Parliamentary Petitions Committee during the next session of Parliament. The petition, which has the endorsement of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce, is to be presented by Mr W. P. Endean, M.P.