XN000022-1980-01-30 — Page 8

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 30, 1980

*

CONSIDERATION BE GIVEN TO REMOVING THE NEED TO PROVE GREATER HARDSHIP FROM THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION AND TO IMPLEMENTING REGISTERABLE REVERSIONARY LEASES FOR A DEFINITE PERIOD OF TENANCY FOR 4-6 YEARS.

REV THE HON PATRICK MCGOVERN

HE WOULD SUPPORT EXTENDING THE RENT CONTROL TO NON-RESIDENTIAL PREMISES IF THE SITUATION SHOULD ARISE.

SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL AS IT STANDS, FR MCGOVERN SAID HE WOULD NOT OPPOSE TO SOME MODIFICATION ON THE 'HARDSHIP' CLAUSE ITSELF, OR PERHAPS BETTER, THE WAY IN WHICH THE CLAUSE IS APPLIED.

+THERE IS A REAL PROBLEM IN A FEW CASES WHERE GENUINE OWNERS CANNOT GET POSSESSION OF THEIR PROPERTY FOR THEIR OWN LEGITIMATE USE, HE NOTED.

I WOULD BE HAPPY IF A REMEDY COULD BE FOUND FOR THAT SITUATION WITHOUT WIDENING THE EXISTING LOOPHOLE BY WHICH IN FACT LANDLORDS DO RE-POSSESS PROPERTY UNDER FALSE PRETENCES.+

FR MCGOVERN AGREED THAT RENT CONTROL IN ITSELF WOULD NOT CURE THE PRESENT HOUSING PROBLEMS OF HONG KONG.

HOWEVER, HE HOPED THAT THE PRESENT CRISIS SHOULD SPUR GOVERNMENT TO DEVISE URGENTLY A COMPREHENSIVE POLICY OF LAND PRODUCTION, REASONABLY PRICED LAND SALES, THE ELIMINATION OF SPECULATION, FOR THE OVERALL PURPOSE OF PROVIDING MORE HOUSING AT A PRICE THAT PEOPLE CAN AFFORD.+

THE HON PETER C. WONG

HE COMMENTED BRIEFLY ON TWO POINTS AND CORPORATION LEASES.

-

SECURITY OF TENURE

ON THE FIRST POINT, MR WONG AGREED THAT THE 'HARDSHIP* PROVISION SHOULD BE MODIFIED IN RESPECT OF TENANCIES TO BE BROUGHT UNDER CONTROL BY THE BILL, SO THAT A LANDLORD WOULD HAVE TO SHOW ONLY THAT HE HAS A REASONABLE CASE FOR REQUIRING POSSESSION OF THE PREMISES.

HOWEVER, HE THOUGHT THE MODIFICATION SHOULD NOT BE EXTENDED TO THOSE PREMISES ACQUIRED AFTER DECEMBER 18, 1979 WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO A CONTROLLED TENANCY.

ON THE SECOND POINT, MR WONG NOTED THAT THE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF PROTECTION TO LIMITED COMPANIES HAS RAISED TWO ISSUES.

FIRST, A CORPORATION, UNLIKE AN INDIVIDUAL, IS PERPETUAL AND WILL ENJOY PERPETUAL SECURITY TO TENURE AS LONG AS THE PROPOSED PROVISION REMAINS IN FORCE. HE CONSIDERED THIS +BOTH UNDESIRABLE AND INEQUITABLE+.

/SECOND,