- 15
50
45.
The Hon. Mr. Caine argued that these words do not mean in- creasing the Crown rent merely to the level of the standard Crown rents being charged for similar properties in the same area because Crown rents make no pretence of being equal to the full. value of the lani. That Crown rents in Hong Kong are alleged to make no pre- tence of being equal to the full value of the land,
IP and that
Government har adopted an arbitrary zone system for Crown rents, is further evidence that Government has departed from the usual method of arriving at lease renewal terms as approved by the Chartered Surveyors' Institution (referred to in paragraphs 5 and 6 of this Report).
--
-
not
46. It is important that this point as to the method of
assessing Crown rent should be cleared up against the time far distant when the renewable leases reach their seventy-fifth year. Lessees with renewable leases undoubtedly assume that when that time comes they are only to be called upon to pay the Crown rent then prevailing in the area. They will be aware that Crown rents have been doubled, and doubled again, during their 75 years' tenure and they will naturally regard the increase to the prevailing standard Crown rent as a sufficiently heavy commitment in itself.
Ive
fail to see how the Government can take more than the standard Crown rent without infringing the Secretary of State's instruction expressed in the words "and without fine," and without also infringing the terms of the lease which states that the further term of 75 years is to be granted "without payment of any fine or
premium therefor".
47.
The Crown lease, having been issued, presumably subsequent to the payment of premium, provides for payment of a specified Crown
rent. In the renewal clause the lease provides that the lessee shall have the option of a further 75 years without payment of fine or pre- mium and at a fair rent to be fixed. This shows that the premium originally paid covers the whole 150 years. The Crown rent for the second 75 years must obviously be fixed in relation to the Crown rent for the first 75 years. To argue otherwise is to imply that the first Crown rent was wrongly fixed. Such Crown rent must be taken to
Page 50Page 51