7
cases at least it may include rent. The question arises whether
the term has this meaning in the passage quoted above. The
view has been expressed that it has this meaning in the above
passage, and that the Land Officer has jurisdiction to decide
a claim for arrears of rent up to the total amount of five
thousand dollars. If the term "land" in the above passage
does not include "rent", then the Land Officer has no
jurisdiction to decide a claim for arrears of rent if either
(a) the physical land has a capital value exceeding five
thousand dollars or (b) the annual rent exceeds five hundred
dollars. If the Land Officer has jurisdiction, the jurisdiction
of the Supreme Court is ousted by section 24 of the Ordinance.
Different opinions have been expressed as to whether the term
"land" does or does not include rent in the above passage.
Accordingly, a landlord may be in doubt as to his proper
remedy, and in case of difference of opinion between the two
jurisdictions he may be left without any remedy at all. In
the case of New Kowloon this position is of less importance,
because a landlord has now a remedy in New Kowloon under the
Distress for Rent Ordinance, 1883, as amended by the Distress
for Rent Amendment Ordinance, 1928. In the New Territories
other than New Kowloon, however, there is no machinery for
distraint.
4.
This Ordinance is intended to resolve the above doubt.
The effect of paragraph (b) of the new proviso to be inserted
by section 3 of this Ordinance is that the Land Officer will
clearly have power to decide claims to arrears of rent so long
as the monthly value of the rent does not exceed $500 and so
long as the total claim does not exceed $1,500.
5. The limits of the Land Officer's jurisdiction in
proceedings relating to land as distinguished from rent are
being altered. Those limits are dealt with in paragraph (d)
of the new proviso. It therefore seems desirable to provide
that the Land Officer shall not have jurisdiction in claims
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.