The Washington herald., 1920-12-26

fecting the method Of handling
landlord and tenant cases in the
local courts will work a great hard
ship on property owners, said n
local dealer in discussing 1t. He
pointed out that there were many
landlords in the District who own a
few pieces of unremunerative prop
erty, who, IL they are deprived Of
rents. will be unable to pay taxes
cost Of repairs. etc. and perhaps
will be forced into bankruptcy.
This condition is made possible
by the fact that the proposed law
permits tenants to tie cases up in
the courts for several years without
requiring the tenant to furnish any
bond to guarantee the payment of
rent in the event that the owner
should win the case. During all the
time that the case is In court. he
pointed out. the owner will be de-
prived of rent funds with which to
pay the taxes and other expenses.
The workings Of the present law
and the proposed law and its e1ect
were outlined as follows:
Under the present law governing
relations between landlord and ten
ant. and under the form OF rental
agreement which Is generally used
IN the District of Columbia, in the
event that an owner wants pos
session OF his property, he must
frst give the tenant proper formal
thirty days notice in writing. II,
after the expiration of that thirty
days notice. the tenant has not va
Gated. the landlord may then go
into the Municipal Court and OBJ
tain a summons against the tenant,
which compels him to appear and
show cause why judgment should
not be given against him. This
summons must be served seven days,
exclusive of Sundays and legal holi-
days, before the day fixed for the
trial.
Get Seven Days Now.
Also, in the event of the failure
of the tenant to pay rent, the land
lord becomes entitled to the seven
days summons previously men
toned.
However. should judgment for
possession be rendered in favor OF
the landlord. the tenant has always
right OF appeal to the Supreme
Court of the District Of Columbia.
which appeal may be presented in
the regular way, and pending a
action are fully protected.
Under the proposed law il Is
sought to relieve the Municipal
Court absolutely and completely OF
jurisdiction in these matters be-
tween landlords and tenants, and
Il is provided in the place, instead
of the remedy now available in the
Municipal Court, to substitute a
right to an action in the Supreme
Court of the District of Columbia.
which action will follow the regular
course of procedure in that court.
The condition OF the docket in the
Supreme Court OF the District of
Columbia are now such that no
case is likely to be heard until at
least a year after its filing and an
action filed in the Supreme Court of
the District of Columbia would be
utterly incompetent to give the par
ties effective relief, for to be effect
I've in matters between landlord
and tenant, the relief must be i'm
mediate.
Proposed Law Unnecessary.
The proposed law is unnecessary
in the first place and unfair in the
second place. II is unnecessary be-
cause of the fact that the present
law is an ample protection to all
parties concerned and permits ten
ants to take their cases to the Dis
trict Supreme Court IL they want to,
and of the further fact that the Mu-
nicipal Court has been handling
quickly and efficiently all Landlord
and tenant matters that have come
before II. and presumably can con-
tinue to do so. 1t is unfair, first
f.
Court of the District of Columbia
is now so overwhelmed with work
that cases are not heard until at
least year after their filing. and
to foist upon that court the heavy
additional work involved in hear
ing landlord and tenant cases would
be an unnecessary hardship upon
the members of the court and
would also serve to add to the now
extraordinary delays attendant upon
actions before II.
The chief point of unfairness,
however, lies in this: That whereas
under the present law when an ap-
peal Is taken to the Supreme
Court Of the District of Columbia
from the Municipal Court, a proper
bond to protect all parties concerned
against loss during the time of the
pending OF the appeal is required.
and, therefore. the delay brought
about by the appeal could not cause
any direct financial loss. Under the
proposed law there would be abso-
lutely no protection to any of the
parties involved during the time
before the case ceuid be heard.
For instance. II a tenant were to
fail to pay his rent. the landlord
would be required under the pro-
posed law to bring a suit for pos
session Of the property before the