OWNER AND TENANT.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXIV, Issue 17635, 7 August 1919, Page 5

OWNER AND TENANT.

FALSE REPRESENTATIONS

ALLEGED.

MAGISTRATE ON LANDLORDS'

RESPONSIBILITIES.

I A case presenting some peculiar features was heard by Mr W. G. Riddell, S.M., at Wellington on Tuesday. The plaintiff was Frank Gomez, settler (for whom Mr T. Neave appeared) and the defendant John Campbell, 9 Ballance Street, carrier (represented by Mr C. B. O'Donnell.) It was alleged by the plaintiff that he was in occupation of premises in Rintoul Street as a tenant at a rental of 25s per week. Under the War Regulations the plaintiff was entitled to continue in occupation on the conditions expressed in the Act. In January, 1919, defendant, it was alleged, represented to the plaintiff that the defendant's daughter was about to be married and that the premises were required by him for her occupation. On such representations the plaintiff gave up possession of the premises, and was compelled to acquire other premises for himself and family at increased ren-1 tal, and was put to considerable ex- J pense in shifting. It was alleged ! that the representations were false ! and were made by the defendant to the plaintiff with the intention of inducing him to give up possession of the premises to the defendant. The i plaintiff, acting on such representa- ' tions, suffered damage in shifting j and payment of a rental of 30s per week for other premises. The plaintiff claimed £20 damages.

For the defence it was contended that there had been no misrepresentation on the part of the defendant. Plaintiff had admitted that he thought the representations were false in the first instance and if he had acted on them he had done so on his own responsibility and could not recover from the defendant. It was contended that damages had not been sustained as claimed.

! After evidence had been heard and i counsel had addressed the court, the ! magistrate gave judgment. In the course of his remarks he said that, at the present time, particularly when there was such a shortage of houses, it was a most serious thing for a landlord to order a tenant to leave unless there were very good reasons for such action. In the present case plaintiff had a claim, but the amount was excessive. Judgment would be for plaintiff for £5 and costs.