New-York tribune., 1920-08-10

remedial measures are adopted by the
legislature before that time. more than
ao,Voo families in this borough alone
Sidewalks |''N
In the lower East Side the Justices
have been able to induce the land-
lord, IN the majority of cases. to
accept compromise and to withdraw
INC appeal for eviction. On October
:; then, the tenants in this section of
the city probably will fare better in
'hls respect than those in anv other
part of the city
1t is from the Bronx, Washington
Heights, University Heights, Harlem
ana west Side sections generally, from
Snose where dwell families with mod
crate income, that the greatest number
on protests are coming, and it is here
'hat. the greatest number of evictions
are asked
That the courts will be crowded Oc-
tooer 1 as result of this goes without
saying. How the forty-seven Municipal
Court justices are going to handle
these thousands of litigants has not
yet been answered. Rental disputes
are clogglng the courts. and the criti-
c'sm has been made that little justice
can be done either to the landlord or
tenant when a justice is called upon
to handle from 200 to 800 cases a day.
One justice. referring to the circum-
stance, remarked, Il hate to think what
will happen October I when that great
army of discontented householders
sweeps down upon our courts in an ef-
Tort to keep the roofs over their heads
1T is a mighty serious situation, and
something should be done at once"
No Is Per Cent Limit
There is the question of the 95 per
cent increase which the law allows to
the Landlord to guarantee him a fair
return on has investment. Notwith-
standing widespread opinion to the
contrary, the laws do not limit to 25
per cent the increase in rent that
may be charged over the previous year
The statutes provide that no dispos-
sess proceedings for non-payment Of
rent may be maintained where the rent
has been increased more than 25
per cent over the rent as it existed one
year prior to the time of the presenta-
tlon of the petition" but the applica-
ton of the statute is limited to an
Apartment under lease or tenancy
Tor one year or less" or under any
lease or tenancy commencing after the
law went into effect, on April l. The
provision is obviously Of no value to
a tenant holding over in an apart
ment which he previously occupied un-
der lease running for more than a
year .
The statutes further state that where
it appears that the rent has been in
creased more than 25 per cent over
tne rate OF the previous year it shall
bc considered "presumptively unjust,
unreasonable and oppressive"
Some justices hold that the right to
the increase should be based on the
assessed value of the property, plus
that the increase should be calculated
or the basis of last years rent. An
other regards 10 per cent as q fair re-
turn on the actual money invested in
the property, and will not grant the
% per cent where this exceeds his idea
Of fair return.
In addition to this diversity Of opn-
ion, the law places the burden of prov
ing that the landlord is not entitled
to more than the 25 per cent increase
on the shoulders of the tenant. CAS-
The landlords remarked Justice Robit-
zek, do not commonly contide in ten
ants either the cost of the operation
and the maintenance, or the return on
sA'NAA -HNSSN4+4ci4s, s4ltlS are very lew
cases, in my eXperiece, where the ten
ant has proved, to the satisfaction of
the court, that the landlords demands
are eXorbitant. This is because they
do not know how to obtain such proof
and are not able to present it in court
il they get it. In many instances it
is impossible for them to get it,"
Brooklyn Decision Important
In the majority of cases, however,
whore the landlord can be persuaded
by the court to accept an increased
rental in lieu Of possession of his prop
perty, fiat 25 per cent increase is al
lowed over the rental of the year pre-
ceGing. If this rule becomes gene raj
as is the outlook, the renters Of New
a least that amount.
Some hope, however, is held out by
the decision of Justice Jacob S. Strahl,
in Brooklyn. Justice Strahl has ruled
that an increase of more than 25 per
cent of what was paid for the same
place year ago is presumptive evi-
dence of profteering, whether or not
the increase is demanded of a new
tenant or an old one.
This decision, if generally followed
would entirely block the plans of the
landlords who count on ousting tenants
in order to be able to get higher rates
from new ones. The landlords would
realize that they had nothing to gain
by forcing old renters out and would be