The New York herald., 1922-10-29

passed in April, 1920. One was Chapter
I39 of the laws of that year. This act
by its terms applied to certain existing
tenancies and to any lease or tenancy
commencing after this subdivision takes
effect Chapter 209 OF the laws OF 1920
provided that no monthly tenant should
be removed unless a thirty days notice
had been given. This seems to be part
OF the general housing legislation. but
1t could hardly be claimed that II was
not to apply to all such tenants there
after. even though they were not such
at the time of the passage of the act.
THE fact that this amendment was
hot intended to limit the scope OF the
enactment was further shown by the
provision that It did not apply TO new
buildings then In course of construction
or commenced thereafter II the Legis-
lature Intended this chapter. or any OF
the others constituting the housing stat
ates. to apply only to tenants then in
possession 1t was wholly unnecessary
and very misleading to insert the pro-
visions that the various acts did not ap-
ply to new buildings. The fact that
those provisions are contained in the
statutes indicates concIusively that the
Legislature did intend their enactYnents
to apply to tenants who became such
after the statutes were passed, with the
exception of tenants who should became
such in new buildings then in course OF
construction or thereafter commenced"
Tenant Must Deposit Sum.
In speaking OF an amendment to
Chapter 434 the opinion of Justice Crop
sey quotes from the amendment as fol-
lows: I'm the case OF q new tenant who
contests the reasonabIeness of the ren'
the tenant must deposit the amount due
according to the agreement"
This reference TO q new tenant
plainly. and. we think. conciusively
shows that II was the intention Of the
Legislature that its enactments should
apply to all tenants and not merely tc
those In possession when the original
statute was passed." said Justice Crop
sey.
"As tho legislative enactments do not
seem to indicate the intention which has
been given to them by the yFarnhanl
case" ne continues. I'VE feel constrained
to differ with tho conclusion there
reached. 1t may be that the greatest
need OF the statutes originally was 20
protect tenants who were in possession.
But II they needed protection there wa >
thea and is now need of protecting ten.
dHts WHO Wclc bOt anu are lIOt pcS-
session. Especially Is there need of pro-
tecting thps, (many thousands Of them
there must be) who were then In posses
sion but who have since been obliged 10
vacate for ono Of the reasons which the
housing laws make the bsis OF a dis
possess at the end of term.
Those tenants have been compelled to
give up possession and to seek new quar-
ters under new landlords. There Is nc
reason why they should not be protected
the same as tenants who were more for
tunate and who were not required to
leave their old dwellings,.
I'VE do not think, as stated In the
opinion in the Farnham case, that a
tenant out of possession and a landlord
stand on an equality Nor do we
think that such tenant has a freedom
of choice Nor do we think 'nat ths
legislation in question can be justified
on the theory Of emergency only with
reference to those tenants who were In
possession at the time the statutes were
passed"