440
Objects and Reasons.
σε
1. Section 20 of the New Territories Regulation Ordi- nance, 1910, Ordinance No. 34 of 1910, which gives the Land Officer a general power to decide all questions regarding any land in the New Territories, provides that he shall not have power to decide any question or dis- pute in respect of any land having a capital value exceed- ing five thousand dollars, or an annual value exceeding five hundred dollars, unless with the written consent of the parties". Section 3 of the Ordinance defines the term "land" in such a way that in some cases at least it may include rent. The question arises whether the term has this meaning in the passage quoted above. The view has been expressed that it has this meaning in the above passage, and that the Land Officer has jurisdiction to decide a claim for arrears of rent up to the total amount of five thousand dollars. If the term land" in the above passage does not include "rent", then the Land Officer has no jurisdiction to decide a claim for arrears of rent if either (a) the physical land has a capital value exceeding five thousand dollars or (b) the annual rent exceeds five hundred dollars. If the Lan Officer has jurisdiction the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is ousted by section 24 of the Ordinance. Different opinions have been expressed as to whether the term "land" does or does not include rent in the above passage. Accord- ingly, a laudlord may be in doubt as to his proper remedy, and in case of difference of opinion between the two jurisdictions he may be left without any remedy at all. In the case of New Kowloon this position is of less importance, because a landlord has now a remedy in New Kowloon under the Distress for Rent Ordinance, 1883, as amended by the Distress for Rent Amendment Ordi- nance, 1928. In the New Territories other than New Kowloon, however, there is no machinery for distraint.
2. This Ordinance is intended to resolve the above doubt. The effect of paragraph (6) of the new proviso to be inserted by section 2 of this Ordinance is that the Land Officer will clearly have power to decide claims to arrears of rent so long as the monthly value of the rent does not exceed $500 and so long as the total claim does not exceed $1,500.
3. The limits of the Land Officer's jurisdiction iu pro- ceedings relating to land as distinguished from rent are not being altered. Those limits are dealt with iu para- graph (d) of the uew proviso. It therefore seems desira - ble to provide that the Land Officer shall not have juris- diction in claims to arrears of rent where the plaintiff's title is disputed bona fide except in those cases where he would have jurisdiction if the proceedings related to the land itself as distinguished from the rent. This point is dealt with in paragraph (c) of the new proviso. This proviso gives the Land Officer jurisdiction over the speci- fied limits if the parties consent. This is merely a con- tinuation of the present provision.
4. The new proviso is inserted immediately after the first sentence of section 20 of the principal Ordinance because it is really a proviso to that sentence and not a proviso to the sentence which gives the Land Officer power to enforce Chinese customs.
5. The doubt referred to in paragraph 1 above arises also in section 24 of the principal Ordinance. Accordingly, that section is repealed by section 3 of this Ordinance, and a new section is inserted which is intended simply to make the jurisdiction of the Land Officer and that of the Supreme Court mutually exclusive, except where the Crown is a party. It preserves, however, the right of the Supreme Court to issue distraints for rent in New Kowloon, as provided in Ordinance No. 8 of 1928.
6. Section 4 of this Ordinance makes the provisions of the Ordinance retrospective. It is only a question of procedure and not of substantive rights.
C. G. ALABASTER,
Attorney General.
20th June, 1930.