CO537-(36-37) — Page 380

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