C 15
duties of each as defined in the Rents Ordinances, and to leave it to the parties themselves to effect a settlement. This method proved successful in very many instances, but in some where the issues were complicated or the interests at stake considerable, it was found impossible to arrive at any compromise, and the case had its sequel in the Law Courts.
The chief class of case centred round the notices to quit issued by the landlord with a view to demolition and rebuilding. Complaints from tenants in this connection reached their maximum in the early summer, just before the passing of the 1923 Amending Ordinance. The Section in that Ordinance requiring the landlord to affix to his notice to quit a copy of the Building Authority's certificate declaring that the premises when reconstructed would be a "new building" removed one fruitful source of complaint, and increased the difficulties of those owners of house property who were seeking some way of evading the ordinance.
The number of cases reported in which an excess over the standard Rent was demanded and received by the landlord or chief tenant was relatively small, but there were numerous instances of the standard Rent being refused by the lessor on some pretext or other in the hope that the lessee might give up possession, or might be deprived of possession subsequently on the grounds of non-payment of rent. Here an early warning to the lessor usually prevented the matter from developing further.
Complaints from landlords arose mainly from the practice of tenants assigning their tenancies without informing their landlord. In the absence, generally, of any written agreement or clause forbidding sub-letting, the landlord found himself unable to remove the "tenant in actual occupation" although this person from the landlord's point of view might be most undesirable. It is safe to presume that on each sub-letting, the recognised tenant netted an appreciable sum as "tea money", indeed the evasion of section 16 by chief tenants is almost certainly general, but there are great difficulties in the way of obtaining evidence of it.
In some cases also a tenant, taking advantage of the fact that the Rent Ordinances contain no machinery for "apportioning" rent, would sub-let a portion of his tenancy for the first time at a rental which exceeded considerably the rent that was due to the head lessor for the whole tenancy. In such cases it was not hard to understand the landlord's indignation.
During the year 23 petitions to H. E. the Governor praying for exemption from the provisions of the Rent Ordinances were referred to the department for investigation and report.
GENERAL.
69. Under the terms of the Deportation Ordinance (No. 25 of 1917) reports were furnished on 174 suspects arrested by the
C 15
duties of each as defiued in the Rents Ordinances, and to leave it to the parties themselves to effect a settlement. This method proved successful in very many instances, but in some where the issues were complicated or the interests at stake considerable, it was found impossible to arrive at any compromise, and the case had its sequel in the Law Courts.
The chief class of case centred round the notices to quit issued by the landlord with a view to demolition and rebuilding. Complaints from tenants in this connection reached their maximum in the early summer, just before the passing of the 1923 Amending Ordinance. The Section in that Ordinance requiring the landlord to affix to his notice to quit a copy of the Building Authority's certificate declaring that the premises when reconstructed would be a "new building" removed one fruitful source of complaint, and increased the difficulties of those owners of house property who were seeking some way of evading the ordinance.
ד
The number of cases reported in which an excess over the standard Rent was demanded and received by the landlord or chief tenant was relatively small, but there were
numerous
instances of the standard Rent being refused by the lessor on some pretext or other in the hope that the lessee might give up possession, or might be deprived of possession subsequently on the grounds of non-payment of rent. Here an early warning to the lessor usually prevented the matter from developing further.
Complaints from landlords arose mainly from the practice of tenants assigning their tenancies without informing their landlord. In the absence, generally, of any written agreement or clause forbidding sub-letting, the landlord found himself unable to remove the "tenant in actual occupation" although this person from the landlord's point of view might be most undesirable. It is safe to presume that on each sub-letting, the recognised tenant netted an appreciable sum as "tea money ", indeed the evasion of section 16 by chief tenants is almost certainly general, but there are great difficulties in the way of obtaining evidence of it.
In some cases also a tenant, taking advantage of the fact that the Rent Ordinances contain no machinery for "apportioning" rent, would sub-let a portion of his tenancy for the first time at a rental which exceeded considerably the rent that was due to the head lessor for the whole tenancy. In such cases it was not hard to understand the landlord's indignation.
During the year 23 petitions to H. E. the Governor praying for exemption from the provisions of the Rent Ordinances were referred to the department for investigation and report.
GENERAL.
69. Under the terms of the Deportation Ordinance (No, 25 of 1917) reports were furnished on 174 suspects arrested by the
1
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.