Graft
6
following:
I agree with Mr.Calder, subject to the
(1) If, instead of paying a rack-rent (i.e.,
the full annual value), a sub-tenant has paid a premium
in consideration of his obtaining his sub-tenancy at a
rent less than the rack-rent, there is something to be
said for renewing his tenancy for the same term as that
for which he held his sub-tenancy, though, if the sub-
tenancy has been determined by re-entry by the Crown,
then, after taking into account the premium he has paid
the rent he paid before re-entry was lower than the
present annual value, There is also something to be
said for increasing the rent when the new tenancy is
granted. If no premium has been paid, I do not
think there are very strong grounds for granting a new
tenancy for the unexpired portion of the 999 years.
(2) I do not follow how the proposal to
substitute several tenants for one is going to facili-
tate the collection of rent (paragraph 6(c) of the
despatch). Surely, it is more difficult and expensive
to collect the rent from half-a-dozen than from one,
and I see no reason for thinking that the labour and
expense hitherto involved for the owner of the head
lease (paragraph 3 of the despatch) will not be
transferred to the Government.
(3) Except in the case where the Crown has
re-entered on the lessee's default, it is presumably
intended that the lease will be voluntarily surrendered
and the land re-leased to the present holders, the
whole transaction being carried out by agreement. If,
however, it is intended to cut down the term without
stant
reducing the rent, I imagine no tenants would agree.
Conson
J.A.
Calder
14.8.3 tou
14.8.31.