FAIR RENTS ACT

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 56, Issue 4016, 23 February 1938, Page 7

FAIR RENTS ACT

APPLICATION TO TERMINATE TENANCY. PLAINTIFF NON-SUITED. When plaintiff’, B. Smyth (Mr R. W. Bennett) was non-suited in a claim to recover possession of a house in Colombo -Street, Frankton, from J. Crozier (Mr W. J. King) by Mr S. L. Paterson, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court, Hamilton, yesterday, an interesting discussion arose over a point of law concerning the Fair Rents Act. The original claim was made on the grounds that defendant was alleged to have been a nuisance to his neighbours and that rent was owing. Mr Bennett applied for an amendment deleting the claim for rent owing. The claim was non-suited by Mr Paterson as no notice terminating* the tenancy had been issued by plaintiff to defendant. LEGAL POINT DISCUSSED. Mr Bennett submitted that under the Fair Rents Act it was not necessary to issue a notice terminating the tenancy when the grounds of the claim were based on defendant’s alleged nuisance to the neighbours. Mr Paterson held that the Fair Rents Act gave the Magistrate’s Court no jurisdiction. The Court derived its jurisdiction to make an order for possession when the tenancy terminated by notice or when the rent was in arrears from the Magistrate’s Court Act. Mr Bennett further submitted that section 13 of the Fair Rents Act was sufficient authority in itself for an order to be made. It was based on a section of the Housing Amendment Act which contained no provision for the giving of any MAGISTRATE’S RULING. Mr Paterson said the real interpretation of section 12 of the Fair Rents Act gave the right to apply under sections 180 and 181 of the Magistrate’s Court Act while section 13 of the Fair Rents Act restricted the power of the Court to make an order under those sections of the Magistrate’s Court Act, except on certain conditions. He added that in the case before him. the plaintiff was bound to give notice terminating the tenancy. Plaintiff was non-suited. Costs were allowed defendant.