RESTRICTIONS ON LANDLORDS EASED UNDER NEW BILL

Wanganui Chronicle, 20 July 1950, Page 4

RESTRICTIONS ON LANDLORDS EASED UNDER NEW BILL

Tenancy Amendment Measure Comes Before The House

PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS, Last Night (P.A.)— A general relaxation of the existing restrictions on landlords in obtaining re-possession of premises from tenants, is provided for in the Tenancy Amendment Bill, of 19 clauses, which was introduced and read a first time in the House of Representatives today.

For over an hour members of the Opposition contested the introductory stages of the Bill, while pressing the Government for details of the measure and assurances that the rights of tenants were safeguarded An important clause reduces from five years to three years the period for which a landlord must own a dwelling house before he can obtain possession for his own occupation without providing alternative accommodation, or proving greater hardship. A landlord who has reached the age of 60 years (or 55 years in the cast of a woman) and has owned a dwelling house for not less than three years, may recover possession of it (or his own occupation on giving the tenant six months’ notice, without being subject to the provisions of the principal Act as to hardship or alternative accommodation. A landlord, on complying with certain conditions, is authorised by the Bill to let a dwelling house or urban property without being subject to provisions which restrict right to recover possession of premises from the tenant. The conditions are that an agreement in writing, which states that those provisions are not to apply and incorporates the terms and conditions Of the tenancy must be entered into and submitted to a rents officer before the tenancy commences and must be approved by the rents officer. The Bill validates any such agreement entered into before the passing of the Bill in the case of a tenancy commencing on or after March 1, 1950. Restrictions as to recovering possession from a tenant are not to apply where the dwelling house is let in future to a worker by his employer. Similarly, these restrictions are not to apply to any future letting of a dwelling house or urban property forming part of the estate of a mental patient. Restrictions as to recovering possession shall cease to apply where the tenant of a dwelling house has transferred or sub-let his tenancy, and no part of a dwelling house is occupied as a dwelling house by the tenant or his family, but this provision is not to apply to a sub-letting during the temporary absence of the tenant for not more than a year. Restrictions on recovering possession shall cease to apply six months after any future transfer of the tenancy by a tenant of an urban property (but not earlier than a year after the passing of the Bill ) unless the landlord previously agrees that they shall continue to apply. GOODWILL PAYMENTS The Bill abolishes restrictions on payments for goodwill on transfer of a tenancy and renders it unnecessary to have any such payment approved by the Land Valuation Court. This provision does not affect prohibition of fines or premiums, and of excessive charges for furniture, fixtures, and other chattels. A landlord who is a trustee is empowered to recover possession of a dwelling house for occupation by a beneficiary under a trust, subject to the same conditions as to alternative accommodation, or greater hardship, as in the case of a landlord seeking posression for his own occupation. Provision is made that where a landlord applies to the Court to recover possession of a dwelling house or urban property, on the ground of a nuisance or annoyance on the part of the tenant and fails to establish his case to the satisfaction of the Court, the Court may nevertheless, in its discretion, if the ojfcumstances warrant it, order that restrictions on recovering possession shall cease after six mentbs. An order is not to be made if the landlord’s conduct has contributed to the circumstances complained of and any order made may be revoked on application made by the tenant within five months, on the ground that the circumstances complained ol have been improved. The Bill provides that if a landlord of an urban property who (after he has owned premises for at least two years) has ghen one year’3 notice that be reasonably requires the premises for his own occupation, may recover possession wit.hout providing alternative accommodation, or proving greater hardship. The Court may gran* tho tenant a further adjournment for not more than six month:: if it considers that to be just and equitable. In order to prevent an injustice to the tenant any sUch case will still be subject to the clauses of the principal Act which give the Court a discretionary power to refuse possession after considering the relative hardship of parties and all other relevant matters. Where a landlord offers a tenant alternative accommooation in a case where the principal Act requires him to do so, that accommodation is to be deemed to be suitable unless the Court is satisfied that it is inadequate for the needs of thi. tenant, or is of an unreasonably low standard, or is foi any special reason unsuitable for the tenant. I The BUI provides that the Court for fixing the fair rent Is to be a Mag’strate’s Court in all cases, subject to a right of appeal to the Supreme Court where the rent exceeds •1525 a year. Licensed hotels (including Trust hotels) are exempted from the principal Act, All future tenancies of camp sites for terms not exceeding six weeks, are similarly exempt. Special provisions of the principal 'Ac, as to servicemen are repealed. These provisions expired on March 31. 1949, or at. tho end 4f one year from end of the servicemen's full-time service, whiCii ever was the later. DISCUSSION IN THE HOUSE The Leader jf tile Opposition (Mr. Fraser), when the Bill was introduced said it might affect the lives, happiness and homes of thousands of tenants. The Minister in charge of the Bill (Mr, Sullivan), said that in line w’th Government po’ ! cy, restrictions on ’nndlords would be eased as far as ’possible. Mr. P. Kearins (Opp., Waimarino): It is goin- to make evid'ons easier. Mr. Sullivan: There will be no such thin” as evictions. Mr. Sullivan said it was recognised there must still he some restrictions on rents and on landlords' rights, and the Bill gave full consideration to

that. The Bill protected tenants against unscrupulous landlords, and landlords against unscrupulous tenants. Experience had shown that there were bad people on both sides and he was by no means satisfied that the fault was always on the tenant’s side. The Bill would protect the’ interests of both parties. Everyone would like to see the stage reached when there was enough accommodation to enable tenancy legislation to be dispensed with, but that time was not yet. During a cross-fire of Interjections Mr. Kearins asked: “What’s wrong with the old Act?” Mr. T. P. Shand (Govt., Marlborough): It stinks! Mr. Sullivan said that since March 1 there had been 437 new tenancies approved by the Labour Department and many represented accommodation not previously available. The present Bill would assist In providing Still more tenancies for those needing homes. Mr. Fraser said he was concerned for those who would be threatened with eviction if the law was loosened. “We propose to fight this measure from this moment,” he declared. Mr. Sullivan said no existing tenancy would be interfered with. Mr. Fraser pressed further questions as to whether anything in the Bill would make for easier evictions, or would allow rents to be raised. Mr. Sullivan, answering Mr. W. E. Parry (Opp., Arch Hill), and other Opposition members, said there was no compulsion in the Bill. “We don’t believe in compulsion on this side of the House," he said. Mr. F. Hackett (Opp., Grey Lynn), said that when he was Minister in Charge of State Housing there were cases of houses which had formerly* reverted to the State being re-posscss-ed by owners. He had instructed the State Advances Corporation that it had a responsibility to tenants threatened with eviction under such circumstances, but were those instructions still being followed? The Minister without Portfolio, Mr. Marshall: There has been no change tn those instructions. Mr. Hackett said the Bill appeared to be another stage toward putting the people back in the street. It indicated the Government had no mercy for the working people. The Under-Secretary for Agriculture (Mr. Smith): You are talking nonsense. During another series of lively exchanges, Mr Hackett declared he did not want any help from the pigmy brain of the Minister of Education. Mr. Sullivan, answering Mr. T. H. McCombs (Opp.. Lyttelton), declared that the Bill did not improve a landlord s right to raise rents. To Mr. E. Tirikatene (Opp., South-, ern Maori), and Mr. W. T. Anderton (Opp., Auckland Central). Mr. Sullivan said he would be pleased to investigate any cases of alleged recent evictions placed before him. Mr. P. G. Connolly (Opp., Dunedin Central), said that past legislation assured justice to the tenant and the landlord, but the amendments now indicated would probably lead tn hundreds of evictions within 12 months. ... Mr. W. Nash (Opp., Hutt), said he was concerned with cases in which neither tenants nor landlords were unscrupulous, but in which the right to obtain possession would automatically entail cruelty. Mr. Sullivan: There will be no Immediate evictions under any amendment in the Bill. ■ The Prime Minister (Mr. Holland' said the Opposition had been knocking down a straw man and the debate had been futile. If Mr. McCombs, who had said he did not agree with the Bill, took that attitude, he knew what to do. His support in passing the Bill was net sought by the Government. The Opposition, when they studied the Bill, would find in it little to fight. There was not dynamite in every clause, as the Opposition suggested. Mr. Holland sttessed that the Bill did not alter the present restrictions on rent. He said instructions to the state Advances in relation to persons threatened with evictions had not been altered. Mr. Fraser, saying the Government’s offer to investigate eviction cases would be availed of, said the Attorney-General might intervene if necessary to suspend eviction orders. Mr. C. F. Skinner (Opp.. Buller', said the Opposition was concerned with those in need of homes, whether tenants or landlords. He admitted some landlords had suffered hardships, but asked if to remedy these isolated cases hardship was to be imposed on a far greater number of people. Any amendment to the Act. particularlyif it enabled tenants to be evicted simply because landlords wanted houses, would be viewed with grave disouiet. The discussion continued for some time before the Bill was given its first reading.