385
144
HONGKONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
pro-
Clause 5 is one of the clauses out, any sub-tenant who holds from him aimed at evasion. It appears that will become the tenant of the landlord certain landlords are in the habit from whom the lessee held, on the same of issing distress warrants for rent terms as the original lessee, but, of in
excess of the rent recoverable course, at the standard rent. Since this under the Ordinance that is, rent Bill was drafted one or two other points in excess of the standard rent-no have been raised which it might be feas- doubt relying on the tenant being too ible to deal with in this Bill, and I ignorant or too poor to take proper propose after the first reading to move that ceedings to question the legality of the the Bill be referred to the Standing Law distress. The clause proposes to make it Committee. an offence to issue such distress war- rants and
proposes to give the magis- trate on the summons being heard power not only to fine the offending land lord, but also to order him to pay back to the tenant any rent in excess recovered by means of the illegal distress; also damages not exceeding $250. This clause also applies to cases where a landlord demands or extracts rent in excess of the standard rent, under threat of issu. ing such illegal distress warrant.
THE COLONIAL SECRETARY seconded, and the Bill was read a first time.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL then moved that the Bill be referred to the Standing Law Committee.
THE COLONIAL SECRETARY seconded, and the motion was agreed to.
CL
The Objects and Reasons" state, that the object of this bill is to make in the Rents Ordinance, 192 certain amendments which experience has shown to be desirable."
Clause 6 is another clause aimed at evasion. It provides that it shall be a criminal offence punishable by a fine of $1,000 for any person to do any act what-(1) (/) of the principal ordinance so as to soever mala fide to induce a lessee to give up possession. That has been in- serted because certain landlords have gone so far as to remove windows in wet weather, and even staircases, to drive the tenants out.
Clause 2 proposes to amend section 4 oblige any landlord giving notice to his finitely what he proposes to do. The para- tenant under that paragraph to state de- graph in question gives the landlord the right to give notice only when he intends either to pull down the domestic tenement or to reconstruct it in such a way as to make it technically a new building. It is to use this paragraph_mala fide and with no real intention of pulling down or recon- struction, and it is thought that to require particularity in the notice may be some additional safeguard.
Clauses 8, 9 and 10 are partly de- claratory and partly intended as amplify-feared that some landlords may attempt ing and pursuing the policy of the prin- cipal Ordinance. Clause 8 provides that notice to quit given by a lessee shall not affect the right of any sub-lessee to re- main on in his own part of the house, unless he joins in or confirms the notice to quit. That was believed to be simply declaratory when the Bill was drafted, and that is now confirmed by the Court. It has been held in a recent case that the law as stated in this clause is, in fact, the existing law; but to make the matter perfectly clear I think it well to retain this clause in the Bill.
Clause 9 provides that an ejectment order against a lessee is not to affect the right of any sub-lessee to remain on in his part of the premises. That is taken from the English Act.
Clause
10 provides that where the interest of the lessee of a domestic tene- ment is determined in any way whatso- ever, in other words, when the lessee goes
alteration which is intended to make it quite Clause 3 propses to make a slight technical clear that any summary offence created in the principal Ordinance or amending Ordin- ance is to be tried before a magistrate.
The object of clause 4 is to give the sum- mary court power to transfer to the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court actions which under the principal Ordinance would otherwise have to be tried in the summary jurisdiction. A transfer of this kind might be desirable where an action relating to the same tenancy had already been commenced in the original jurisdiction and where such action could not be transferred to the sum- might be highly inconvenient that the mary jurisdiction. In such an event it two actions should be heard separately in different courts.
a
HONGKONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
A special explanation of sub-clause (3) of clause 4 seems desirable. The principal Ordinance, which contemplates only a trial in the summary jurisdiction, provides for an appeal from the summary jurisdiction to the full court of two judges. Speaking gen- erally, however, the Full Courts Ordinance, 1912, provides that all appeals from the original jursidication, except interlocutory appeals, must be to the full court of three judges. Sub-clause (3) of clause 2 of the bill proposes to apply the provisions of the Full Court Ordinance, 1912, to any action trans- ferred under sub-clause (1) of clause 2. The objection to making the appeal in such a transferred action lie to the full court of two judges is that it would in that case be necessary to provide that the appeal in any original jurisdiction action consolidated with the transferred action should also lie with the full court of two judges. It is certainly an objection to sub-clause (3) of clause 2 of the bill that an appeal to the full court of three judges places additional delay in the way of the determination of a class of cases which ought to be heard speedily, especially as the Ordinance is only a temporary one, but the consideration mentioned above seems to out- weight this objection.
Clause 5 of the bill is intended to check the practice of issuing distress warrants for amounts in excess of the standard rent, ap- parently in the hope, often well founded,
that the tenant will have neither the means nor the knowledge to resist such an illegal distress by means of ordinary civil proceed- ings, with their attendant expense and technicality.
Clause 6 makes it a criminal offence, pun- ish able with a fine of $1,000, for any person to do any act mala fide in order to induce a te nant to quit. This clause has been insert- ed because of complaints that certain land- lords have been removing windows and even staircases in order to drive their tenants out.
Clause 7 provides that a notice to quit given under section 4 (1) (f) of the principal Ordinance shall not be valid unless given or confirmed by leave of the court. It also provides that, even if leave is given, the lessee may apply at any time for damages if he can prove that the notice was not bona fide. Sections 4 (1) (5) of the principal Ordinance deals with cases where the lessor gives notice to quit on the ground that he intends to pull down or reconstruct the domestic têne- ment. Clause 4 has been inserted in the bill because it appears that certain - land- lords are using this provision mala fide, ie, in cases where they have no real
145
pre-
intention of reconstruction and are pared to abandon their alleged intention to re-construct provided that the tenant is prepared to pay an increased rent.
Clause 8 provides that a notice to quit given by a lessee is not to affect any sub-lessee, unless the latter concurs with
the notice.
Clause 9 provides that an ejectment order against a lessee is not to affect any sub-lessee. This provission is taken from the English Act.
Clause 10 provided that upon the deter- mination of the interest of a lessee any sub-lessee becomes a statuory tenant of the head landlord on the same terms as he would have held from his immediate landlord if the latter's tenancy con- tinued, but at the standard rent. This is also taken from the English Act.
Mercantile Bank Note Issue
HON. MR. POLLOCK-I beg to move the first realing of a Bill intituled, An Ordinance to extend for & further period the powers granted by the Mer- cantile Bank Note Issue Ordinance, 1911, to make, issue, re-issue and circulate to the Mercantile Bank of India, Ltd.,
will see from the statement of Objects notes in the Colony. As hon. members
and Reasons attached to this Bill, the present power of the Bank to make, issue re-issue and circulate notes in the Colony, which was granted by Ordinance in the year 1911, will expire in the normal course on the 28th December of this year.
It is proposed by clause 2 expiry till the 13th August, 1929, after of the Bill to extend that period of which date the Bank will cease to issue or re-issue notes but shall redeem any notes which it shall have previously issued or re-issued.
HON. MR. HO FOOK seconded, and the Bill passed the first reading.
The Objects and Reasons state :--The Mercantile Bank Note Issue Ordinance, 1911, Ordinance No. 65 of 1911, empower- ed the Mercantile Bank of India, Limited. to make, issue, re-issue and cir- culate bank notes. This power was limited to a period of 10 years from the commencement of the Ordinance. It is now considered desirable to extend this period which expires on December 28th. 1921.