Sessional_Paper_1938 — Page 109

105

9. As regards the 168 cases remaining after deducting the 45 cases of which there were exact assessment figures for the years 1933 and 1937, we were in some difficulty, for assessments had often been made on whole houses and we had therefore in such cases to make an estimate of floor rents by having regard to the rent of the whole house and inquiring what rents were the basis of assessment for comparative floors in the neighbourhood. In order to avoid any possibility of bias, we made this estimate without having the figures given by landlords and tenants before us, and with some doubt we consider that in 29 cases the rent has been raised above the 1933-1934 level; in 22 cases has been restored to that level; in 52 cases has been raised above the 1937 level, but has not yet reached the 1933-1934 level and in 27 cases has been raised above the 1937 level with no figures of pre-depression rentals available. In 36 cases we were already aware that bare notice to quit had been given. The remaining 2 cases are probably increases to a high rent with a view to getting rid of the tenant.

10. Although we have done our best to arrive at a correct conclusion, these figures are at best guesswork, and may be either too high or too low. Even the figures relating to the 45 cases mentioned above are only approximate. We prefer to place greater reliance on the facts and figures set forth in the succeeding para- graphs of this Report.

Illustrations from Written and Oral Evidence.

11. A tenant of a floor in Glenealy wrote to us, and his own words are illuminating:-"I have been living in the above address

since 1935 June paying a monthly rent of $60 and in December 1935 I asked for a reduction of $10 and my landlord

only comply with it when I sent in the month's notice to leave

$60 rent I could not pay, but as the locality is good I meant to stay for 6 months only unless finding me a good and regular tenant the landlord will reduce the rent to $50". It will be observed that the tenancy com- menced during the depression, and that the tenant obtained accommodation of a type for which he could not afford to pay even during that period in the hope of obtaining a reduction. The landlord now proposes to raise the rent to $65 per

month.

12. A tenant in Kennedy Road writes: "For over two years I have been paying a rental of $90. When I moved in, this place was not at all considered a bargain (witness the fact that it had been vacant for some time before I took it over)

Again the rent of $90 commenced during the depression and

it is obvious that the landlord would accept a rental at that figure rather than leave the premises vacant.

13. A letter in the issue of the South China Morning Post of the 17th March, 1938, alleged an increase in rental as follows:-

<

Another house in Kowloon :-

Old Rent $60. New Rent $100, an increase of 663 per cent.; subject to a lease for 2 years being signed within 15 days of notice, the new rent is to be reduced to $90 ".

The letter went on to allege extortion on the part of "one of the biggest property owners in the Colony". The writer of this letter did not appear before us, but his landlords did, and from unimpeachable evidence we are satisfied that the true facts are as follows:

In September, 1930, the flat (not house) in question was let for $107 per month "including taxes and water". In December, 1930, the rent was adjusted to $95 per month "exclusive of taxes". (This really means 'rates'). This adjustment amounted to a monthly liability on the part of the tenant to pay $110.80. In September, 1933, by which time the depression was beginning to make itself felt, the tenant asked for a reduction of his rent to $90, adding that he would be compelled to give notice if his request was not acceded to. The landlords did not agree to the reduction, the tenant left, and the flat stood vacant for over two months.