Sessional_Paper_1938 — Page 106

102

scope of our functions in certain quarters. We were frequently asked to prohibit landlords from raising rent or giving notice to quit, or to arbitrate between landlord and tenant. In one case a tenant who had been evicted on a magistrate's warrant desired us to intervene, and in another a tenant who had been an unsuccessful defendant in an action for recovery of possession in the Supreme Court.

8. We also received evidence from the Government Assessor of Rates, the Executive Engineer in charge of the Buildings Ordinance Office, and various unofficial witnesses. We considered in addition written cases submitted by tenants, and written arguments, tables of figures and extracts from account books submitted to us by a number of prominent house property owners.

9. By the evening of the 21st March, 1938, we felt we had progressed sufficiently to justify us in notifying in the columns of the press, and at all Police Stations in Victoria and Kowloon, that we would not receive further complaints after the 23rd March, 1938, and such notification was given accordingly on the 22nd March, 1938.

10. We had hoped on and after the 24th March, 1938, to devote our time to analysing the evidence and information we had obtained, and to drafting this Report, but a delay was caused by circumstances which we desire to explain. We requested the Secretary of the Kowloon Residents Association, which had before our appoint- ment inserted in the newspapers an advertisement incorporating a questionnaire whereby tenants were invited to ventilate their grievances, to appear before us. The Secretary to the Association duly appeared before us on the morning of the 14th March, 1938, when he informed us that the Association had up to that date receiv- ed about 130 replies to its questionnaire. We requested him to ask his Committee to consider the correspondence, and to select for us those cases in which investi- gation seemed most necessary. The Association held a

The Association held a general meeting on the 22nd March, and on the afternoon of the 23rd March we received a deputation representative of its members who informed us that on account of the fact that their advertisement had contained the words All replies will be treated con- fidentially" they did not feel at liberty to disclose particulars of any complaints they had received. The Association had not investigated any of the complaints. They stated that the number of complaints received up to and including the 19th March, 1938, was 321 and that they did not propose to entertain any further complaints. They requested us to extend our enquiry, so far as the complaints that they had received were concerned, until the 26th March, 1938, in order that they might find time to inform their complainants by means of press advertisements that those who desired their cases to be investigated by the Commission, should com- municate directly with us. In view of the large number of complaints received by the Association, and the startling increases of rent alleged to have been imposed in a summary presented to us by the deputation, which in six cases were said to exceed 150%, we felt that we had no option but to agree to the request.

66

11. We sat on the morning and afternoon of Saturday the 26th March, 1938, to deal exclusively with the Kowloon Residents Association's cases. Owing to an unfortunate error in a comment in a Chinese newspaper on the Association's advertisement, for which the Association was in no way to blame, the Chinese public were led to believe that we were prepared to hear all cases, and considerable con- fusion resulted. We endeavoured to ascertain which of the many applicants had in fact applied to the Association before the 19th March, 1938. Some had not complained to the Association at all; others had not complained before the 19th March, 1938; others were not resident in Kowloon and others were tenants whom we had already seen or whose written complaints we had already considered. All these we declined to hear. Those tenants who had actually written to the Associa- tion, as distinct from merely filling in its questionnaire, had been notified by its Secretary that they should report to us, and we interviewed all those in possession of his letter. In addition, we heard what appeared to be the more outstanding cases. In no case did we discover any such huge increase as was alleged in the summary