e terms on which such leases ar:
granted are shewn in (3), and the only question at issue is whether, on grounds of general policy, there are objections to
the grant of 'rown leases for a period so
long as I50 years i.e. 75 years with
<
renewal for a further term of 75 years.
ir Chamberlains minute written in
1895 is quoted in r ibbert's minute
above, and lays down that 75 (or even 99 years) is a reasonable term for a building
lease. In the I doubt if the ong hong system of lease for 150 years with pro- vision for re-asses ment of rent after
75 years is less favourable to the ovt. than an initial grant for 99 years. Apparently the practice of granting such leases has not been questioned since ir
"hamberlain's time, and I would leave it
alone.
Hlowell
&
Si S. Wilson.
I pass this
on,
or it raicres
a
(verter of Veneral Latiny which is
ғ
some unfortance.
ง
world affron
the Governor's proposals
Bir R. Hamilton.
US.
24/11/31 Jassee. 8/14/6/0/31.
over
Page
Page
9
with regard to Mr Buttonjee's lease 100
understand why
not quite
75 year
the system of a
lease date's back is adopted, instead
of a straight forward term of 43 years with
option to renew
for 24.
on the general question lague with
hosten becedent's It Cowell's view.
To
Nhill
1. 12. 31
alonce
(50
بخمسة
Goo. Tel. No. 144 (Sauna) kust.
DESTROYED UNDER STATUTE
A
P
age 9
age 9
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.