17
52
We think that an Arbitration Board is necessary and will be welcomed, because in any dispute the Government is in the-position of an interested party. Such a Board should have amongst its rembers a qualified accountant and a valuer.
51. In support of the contention advanced in paragraph 49, we
desire again to refer to the Report of the Land Commission of 1886-87. The Commissioners stressed the desirability of all leases (except garden, etc., lots) being granted upon the same tenure.
5
This is
impracticable as far as the 999 year leases are concerned, but at any rate there is no need to perpetuate the inequality between the
75 and the 75 plus 75 year leases. The 75 year leaseholders have the further grievance that the terms asked for 75 plus 73 year leases were the same as those which had been charged previously for the shorter period. In the special local circumstances that the Government is in the position of a land monopolist, we consider once in 150 years is quite often enough for the landlord to step in and exercise his right to compel the lessee to buy back his property. All the more is this the case when other lessees in the community
possess leases for 999 years.
52.
There are a few exceptional cases in which the area of the
site is so large that payment of current Crown rents would be ax
uneconomic surden. Such lessees should be allowed
53.
at the end of
their present leases to surrender unwanted portions of the site
and to have a garden lease, at a lower rent, for part of the land,
In conclusion, we claim with the fullest confidence that a
case has been made out for the proposition that the public has been given every ground for its long-established belief that the 75 year leases would be renewed, on expiry, upon payment of an enhanced Crown rent. We believe equity demands that this enhanced rent should be the proving Crown rent cf the area, and that any other ruling will only create confusion and injustice. Clear evidence exists over a period of many years that the authorities both here and in the Colorial Office had no intention of interpreting and applying the leasehold system in all its severity. They were rightly more concern