93
"2
22
HONGKONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
firmed his previous agreement of sale. To what extent I have properly stated the facts I cannot say, but, if that is so, it is a precedent for the application of that principle here-that after a man has made an agreement to quit it should be confirmed before the Court should make an order of ejectment.
HIS EXCELLENCY-Does any hon, mem ber desire to address the Council?
No member signifying any desire to do so,
MR. JENKIN-This section deals with the restrictions on the right to possession and the protection of tenants against eject ment. The proposal is to put in after the words" to quit in the first line the word. or has or shall have agreed in writing to quit.' The proposed addi- tion was, in common with the rest of the section, retrospective in effect and would mean that the Court would be entitled to make an order of ejectment against any tenant who, prior to the coming into force of this Ordinance, had agreed in any shape or form in writing to quit. That would work considerable hardship in certain cases and as I am instructed
H.E. THE GOVERNOR said—Gentlemen, I it has done so already. The circum- did not intend to speak on the second stances are these. The tenant is notified reading of the Bill, but it has come to by his landlord that he must quit the my notice that in speaking previously of premises he is occupying. He arranges the necessity of some such measure I, by with his landlord for a period of grace
an unfortunate slip, confined myself to during which he may find what is called dealing only with one case of gross extor- alternative accommodation. Assuming he tion. I was carried away rather by the has found alternative accommodation, side issue of farming" and did not and, if subsequent to that, the knowledge give you the other information. I should of this intended Ordinance caused the like to take this opportunity of amend- offer to be withdrawn, what is his positioning that mistake. I am glad, as a matter He has agreed with his previous landlord
of fact, that I confined my remarks to to quit his premises and therefore the one particular case because the result of Court can make an order of ejectment, my doing so was to produce a letter in whereas he has had the alternative accom- the newspapers from the Hongkong Land modation to which he thought he was
Investment Co. which afforded the best going withdrawn from him. The tenants argument I have yet seen for the passage are not asking for much because they of such a Bill as this. I am not referring have met with considerable consideration to the ingenious argument to show that from this Council. They are asking, in an increase of $33 is equivalent to one of so far as it is the desire of the Council $11, or rather that it would have been to give the right of ejectment where if circumstances had been entirely differ- agreement to quit shall have been made, ent. Personally I am seldom impressed that that right shall not be retrospective by arguments based on the model of the old and that that sub-section shall read so French saying that "If my aunt had been a as to make it operative only from the man she would have been my uncle." passing of this Ordinance. A case of think it is safer to look at the facts that kind has been brought to the notice and regard 833 as $33 and not $11. I am of Mr. Wilkinson-and I am instructed referring to a passage in the letter in it is a bad case where a man having which it was shown that as a result of agreed to quit has been left, as it were, the farming system, the Land Investment out in the cold by reason of the enforce- Company had received in respect of cer- ment of the agreement and the with- tain tenements an income representing drawal of the alternative accommoda- 9.52 per cent. on their expenditure. tion. Therefore, I ask you when in Com Well, if 9.52 per cent, were the amount mittee, to consider the possibility of mak- which the landlord was getting from his ing that portion read as from the opera- tenant I should say it was not entirely tion of the Ordinance and not retrospec- unreasonable. I should have accepted it tive. There is a provision in the New with pleasure in those days when I was Territories Law to the effect that where in the position of a landlord. One took at the time of taking over the Territories risks of property stan ing vacant, but this a person had agreed to a sale of land, 9.52 represents the net result to the that, when a certain Ordinance was put Hongkong Land Investment Co. That into operation, it was agreed that this is what is paid to them by the farmer. agreement for sale should not be opera I contend that this is far too much. The tive unless the person came in and con- rent is farmed by one man who probably
HONGKONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
farms it to another, and possibly it is farmed by half-a-dozen, and by the time it gets down to the tenant he is paying not 9.52 per cent., but probably 19 per cent. Even if there is only one farmer and he confines himself to the very mode- rate rate of 6 per cent. on his capital that would make 16 per cent. the tenant is paying on the property. That is too much. This is one of the evils of the farming system which is a matter, I con- sider, that ought to be dealt with and requires dealing with at once. I suggest to the Council that in the letter before us we have overwhelming reasons for dealing with the farmer at an early date. Let me give you other instances. The first is a case in Irving Street-it is a case in which a farmer is concerned. The rent was raised from $12 to $16 last year. In May it was proposed to raise it from $16 to $20. I do not think it will be contended that the value of money has gone down 25 per cent. since the beginning of this year; so that appears to represent an increase for which there is no justification. This case is not an extraordinary one. On these facts being represented to the farmer he though it better to compromise at $17. The next case is from Nathan Road, Kowloon. The rent was raised $30 a house-more than 25 per cent. increase. This is an interesting case because the ground given for the increase of rent by the landlord was that if he were to build now it would cost him $20,000 and the land might be valued at $6,000. Such an argument is entirely irrelevant. He is not building, but taking advantage of the shortage of houses to make a wholly unjustifiable increase of the rents paid by his tenants. Another case is in Austin Road, where the rent of one room began at $7, then it rose to $15 and then to $17. The tenant having renovated the premises the landlord put up the rent to $18.50. The next case is from Mody Road, Kowloon. The rent in March, 1919, was $100; in March, 1920, it became $105; in September, 1920, $115; and in July, 1921, $135. That is as good a case of extortion as I have yet met. The next case is from Hollywood Road, where the rent was raised from $30 to $70, and there was a case in Wanchai Road, where the original rent a few years ago was $15, which was raised to $20 in January, $24 in April and recently to $35. I think that is a sufficient answer to the suggestion that the rents fixed should be those of 30th June. In a case in Morrison Street
J
469
94
the rent of $175 was raised in the fourth moon to $200, and now it is proposed to raise it to $600. In Chatham Road land was leased in 1911 by the Land Invest- the system of farming and the rent was ment Company at $9. They then adopted raised to $14, in the second moon it was raised to $19, and at the same time "shoe money
There are three cases in Cross Street, Wanchai, in
of $50 was demanded,
which the rent was raised in one case from $14 to $28; and in another from $11 to $28. In Graham Street a rent of $30
it was now proposed to raise it to $100. was raised in August, 1920, to $70, and
In Gough Street rent was raised from $27 to $30 last year, then to $37 in March last and now to $75. supply all the comment that is necessary. I think these cases They speak for themselves.
for the second reading of the Bill to the HIS EXCELLENCY then put the motion Council, and it was passed without a dis- sentient vote.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL then moved that the Council go into Committee to consider the Bill clause by clause.
THE COLONIAL SECRETARY seconded, and the motion was agreed to.
HIS EXCELLENCY
invited Counsel
appearing for petitioners to remain if they so wished.
MR. ALABASTER remained to press th amendments he had indicated in his
address.
On Clause 1, the ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved to amend the long title by the addition of "and to amend the Rating Ordinance, 1901."
The motion was agreed to.
On Clause 2, the ATTORNEY-GENERAL proposed to amend paragraph (2) a
follows:
-
(a.)-Insert after habitation" in the fifth line, "and every hotel and boarding house falling within any one of the classes of boarding houses specified in Rule 1 of the rules made by the Governor in Council under the Asiatic Emigra- tion Ordinance, 1915, and the Boarding House Ordinance: 1917, and published in the Gazette of the 19th day of October, 1917."