CLAIM FOR POSSESSION.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXVI, Issue 7563, 6 May 1919, Page 4

CLAIM FOR POSSESSION.

LANDLORD v. TENANT. [) An interesting case was heard at :'ii the Magistrate's Court yesterday, tie* , $\ fore Mr. Wyvern Wilson, S.M. , $ The plaintiff was Thomas D. I. MoKenzie and on his behalf Mr. C. I*, g. Brown stated he purchased through || the Public Trustee, three houses in. ■ :%■ Liverpool Street,' and that in the ,>v case of one house plaintiff had beejn /„ served with notice to paint and re- ."■' paper it, and pull a shed down fet -~': the back. Plaintiff let a contract. ;| for the necessary repairs, and called >,' on the occupier, a returned soldier .j named R. Tasker, to leave the prein- '^ ises. This, Tasker had not done. >>S Counsel said the proceedings were V laid under a section of the Act by '.''; which the defendant was liable to a -1 * penalty for each day he continued in. possession. His Worship: Couldn't all .this, .' work be done with the man in thq(-, J3 house? '^Lil Mr. Brown said that physically that was so, but he claimed plaintiff wa* \ entitled to possession. - Thomas D. McKenzie the owflßfß^ the premises, said he let a conttajp* j, to put the premises in order, winch ... included the pulling down, of tha ;• house and placing the building further forward on the section. He proposed to carry but more work; than the requisition actually . required. His Worship said the question waa could a landlord put a tenant out because he wanted to pull down the house. He did not think he could do so.

Mr. Brown asked that the tenancy should be ended. ' His Worship said he did not think they were entitled tol take out a summons for possession in the Court. It raised the point as to whether jt was reasonable to only comply with, the requirements of the Public Health, requisition or to go further and spend money to improve the'premises. The plaintiff at this stage^ offered defendant another house until h,e could look round. . Samuel G. Earles, of the Public Trust Office, said the Public Health, requirements were made known to Mr. McKenzie when he purchased ttu. property. ' ~ j K. Malcolm, contractor, considered 'the place could not be renovated 'with defendant in possession. Thg shed had been removed. His Worship said it did not appear that any obstruction had been oT- i fered by defendant. It was not nee- J essary to shift the building to reno-^ vate it. It was not likely the tenant would object to the house being painted. The trouble was the landlord had let a contract for more than , was required to be* done and to shift the house in order to better it. As -the tenancy was not terminated tno house could be pulled down. His Worship advised counsel to look into the Act and its provisions in regard to the protection of soldiers. The case was dismissed. -~ _'.-