C 13
There were cases where an increase over standard rent was demanded and received. In many of these cases, it was found that the tenants had approached the landlord with an offer of increased rent if he would refrain from demolishing the house.
Cases where rent is refused by the landlord have always been frequent. The landlord is summoned and advised to accept payment, and the tenant at the same time sent to inform the Registrar, Supreme Court, in case the landlord should seek to get him to quit by means of a distress warrant.
Ordinance I of 1924 of 7th March altered the nature of the cases considerably, although the effect was not fully felt till the three months' notice, given in the notices issued before the amendment, had expired; as tenants sought advice more often towards the end of the period than immediately on receipt of the notice. Several notices to quit were issued by both architects and solicitors after the passing of this amendment which failed to conform to the requirement that the Building Authority's certificate should state that the intended reconstruction is desirable.
97
As comparatively few such desirability certificates were issued, there have been frequent appeals by landlords from the Building Authority to the Governor-in-Council. In these cases a report has been prepared on the nature of the tenancy of the house in question and the views of the tenants on the proposed demolition. In cases when the appeal has been granted, the tenants have been informed accordingly by this office and told that they should receive three months' notice from the landlord.
There have also been petitions from landlords for exemption from the provisions of the Rents Ordinance, generally cases where the landlord wishes to assume the tenancy of his own house.
Tenants, after having been served with valid notices to quit under Rents Ordinance 1922-23, have occasionally appealed for exemption from the provisions of Section 4 (1) (f) thereof. Such cases have generally found their way to the Law Courts. With the amendment of March 1924 in operation, they do not arise.
As a result of this amendment the nature of the work of this department in cases of demolition and reconstruction has completely altered in the last few months. Instead of tenants coming to seek advice on the validity of the notice to quit which they have received, they are now summoned to show reason why the appeal of the landlord for the grant of a desirability certificate should not be upheld.
The effect of the Amending Ordinance of March 1924 not only by checking indiscriminate reconstruction but also by depriving landlords of the unlawful increase in rent which the mere
C 13
There were cases where an increase over standard rent was demanded and received. In many of these cases, it was found that the tenants had approached the landlord with an offer of in- -creased rent if he would refrain from demolishing the house.
Cases where rent is refused by the landlord have always been frequent. The landlord is summoned and advised to accept pay- ment, and the tenant at the same time sent to inform the Registrar, Supreme Court, in case the landlord should seek to get him to quit. by means of a distress warrant.
Ordinance I of 1924 of 7th March altered the nature of the cases considerably, although the effect was not fully felt till the three months' notice, given in the notices issued before the amend- ment, had expired; as tenants sought advice more often towards the end of the period than immediately on receipt of the notice. Several notices to quit were issued by both architects and solici- tors after the passing of this amendment which failed to conform to the requirement that the Building Authority's certificate should state that the intended reconstruction is desirable.
“
97
As comparatively few such desirability certificates were issued, there have been frequent appeals by landlords from the Building Authority to the Governor-in-Council. In these cases a report has been prepared on the nature of the tenancy of the house in question and the views of the tenants on the proposed demoli- tion. In cases when the appeal has been granted, the tenants have been informed accordingly by this office and told that they should receive three months' notice from the landlord.
There have also been petitions from landlords for exemption from the provisions of the Rents Ordinance, generally cases where the landlord wishes to assume the tenancy of his own house.
Tenants, after having been served with valid notices to quit under Rents Ordinance 1922-23, have occasionally appealed for -exemption from the provisions of Section 4 (1) (f) thereof. Such cases have generally found their way to the Law Courts. With the amendment of March 1924 in operation, they do not arise.
As a result of this amendment the nature of the work of this department in cases of demolition and reconstruction has comple- tely altered in the last few months. Instead of tenants coming to seek advice on the validity of the notice to quit which they have received, they are now summoned to show reason why the appeal of the landlord for the grant of a desirability certificate" should not be upheld.
The effect of the Amending Ordinance of March 1924 not only by checking indiscriminate reconstruction but also by de- priving landlords of the unlawful increase in rent which the mere
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.