201
13.
2227
Moresbame suk
105
ག ག
נייוייון
The Chairman:-
A.
Kr Shelton Hooper:-
18049
Ä.
the tenant to use it before it was set ?
I could not stop them using it. My workmen went in and repaired it, and the tenant undid it.
I dont think that that constitutes an offence against the Ordinance.
►
you had one house 18849
Supposing you owned one house,
only, and that occurred, well, you would make some arrangement with your tenant, that he should not use that floor until it had set, if by so doing, he was likely to damage the floor, and causing you the expense next week again. Or, putting it another way, if you had shut up that house for a week, and that tenant had
gone back again and carried on his trade, that floor
would have lasted months, and perhaps years, wouldnt
it ?
Yes.
A.
1805-0
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference:-
GO
537
37
OUT PERMISSION RECORD OFFICE. LONDON I OF THE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHICALLY WITH- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH - HOT TO BE
THE PUBLIC
Therefore, dont you think that that is the only thing? That precautions must be taken by the owner, and that
the hardship is not created by the Ordinance ?
Well, I think that the Ordinance was hard on me, in
threatening to prosecute me when I had done all that I
was asked to do. I had repaired the concrete, and the
tenant destroyed it.
Well, your remedy clearly lay against the tenant, 18057
Yes, but I had no remedy against the tenants, except
to eject them.
Or to get damages ? But can you suggest any way to 18852
meet the difficultý you have just put forward ?
Well, in regard to kitchen sinks, I say that they are
ussless things, and I would not have them. I have been
told to replace kitchen sinks, and the moment I have
replaced them, the tenant has kicked them over again,
and I am told to replace them again. That is wrong.
Kitchen sinks are not wanted by anyone, and they should
£
57 20
A
A.
Page 380Page 381