New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1920-04-10
New Tenancy
Plan to Raise
Rents Barred
CONTINUED from pase ono

to comparisons on the % per cent basis
This phase Of the situation has been a
source of considerable worry to Chair
man Hilly and other members Of the
Mayors committee, as it was impos-
sible to tell what the courts would
hold. If Justice Davies's decision
stands this entire scheme will be
blocked and ali apartments regardless
of who is in them, can be held to %
per cent above the rents of April, 1919,
except in cases where the landlord can
prove the fairness of a greater in
crease.
The decision was given in the case Of
thirty tenants of SO West 139th Street
They declared they were paying 33 per
cent more than year ago and that
new increase had been demanded. The
justice ordered the rental cut to that
OF April. 1919, plus 25 per cent.
but some of~these tenants have not
been raised, because they were not in
Charles Moore, the agent.
THAT makes no difference" said the
justice. These laws were drawn for
the benefit of all tenants, whether they
have lived in one apartment for years
or only for weeks. In fixing rentals,
the law provides that the rate of April
1919, shall be the basis, regardless of
May Recover Back Rent
"The courts are crowded with land
lords who seek to GUST their tenants,
thinking that once they get them out
they will be allowed to charge what
they please in renting to new occu
pants. Such landlords are going to be
evlctions. They will get no more rent
by busting an old tenant and they
might as we'll keep those they have"
In another of the. $50 cases before
Justice Davies landlord agreed to
accept the reduction ordered by the
court.
But III raise it next month";" he
added.
mo you WON'T" declared the justice.
"Thc rates fixed now stand for
John Goodwin, of sc West 10th
Street, asked the court about his
chance to recover back rent which had
been above the present legal rates.
The court ruled that the new rent laws
were retroactive to April /, 1919 and
that any tenant who had been raised
more than the legal limit was entitled
to rebate. He told Goodwin that if
he was paying more than a fair rate
he could sue his landlord for the differ
encc paid during the whole of the last
year.
The justice also ruled that the cx-
'stence of lease, calling for a.1.legal
rate, was no bar to redress. Nis at
tention was called unofficially to the
case of man who had a lease in
Washington Heights apartment at a
big increase over that of the. previous
tenant.
Lease No Bar to Action
"lf that man will come in here his
rent will be reduced to the basis of
what the old tenant was paying year
ago, lease or no lease" said the Justice
ANY tenant in New York can take adj
needs to do is to show what the old
rent was and what his own is Any
lease can be thrown out if it violates
this rule"
Justice Leopold Prince, in the 9th
District. also rigidly enforced the new
laws He demanded explanations from
land ords for every increase, no mat
ter how small, and gave tenants from
one to six months in all dispossess
cases, even when the premises were
wanted by the landlords for their own
use. In several cases he fixed reduced
rentals to which the landlords agreed.
Justice Harry Robitzek in the Cd
District Of The Bronx, continued his
decisions against landlords, but found
one case in which he turned against
the tenants. Sixtysix tenants Of 1888
to 1343 Merriam Avenue had refused
to pay because the landlord had served
notice that they would have to meet an
increase in October. The justice re-
buked the tenants and ordered them to
pay up at once. He told them they
could bring proper action if the land
lord carried out his threat, but had no
justification for refusal to pay rent at
present.