Tenants and Rent Reduction The full text of the judgment in the rent reduction action brought by six Canton Road shop proprietors, against Tsung Teh Rental Agency, their landlords, is now available. The action was recently dismissed by the First Special District -Court's Civil Division and a report has appeared in the *North-China Dally News." Mr, Keo Wen-chi, attorney-atlas, re: tthe monthly rental of $183.81. That the plaintiffs been occupying the said premises for ten years; that during the riod the rentals have been on several occasions Increased on the Ground of prosperity of the market; that the present rate of rental almost twice as much as the original rental; that the plaintiffs have been suffering from the oppression. from the capitalists; that in recent years there has been a general and serious depression; that as rental could he that the value of real property JShanghai has depreciated which Is a well known fact; that according to Jaw either party may apply to Court for increase or reduction of rent ax the value of the real property should decrease or increase rounds the plainti duction of rent.
"The plaintiffs also allege that the other landlords of the neighbouring Property have reduced the rent by 20 per cent. which are substantiated the rent receipts: that the pi tifts' demands cedent; the plaintiffs may vacant the premises if they should find rent too high, the plaintiffs have established business in the said premises and that so it 1s almost impossible for them to vacate these pre mises. The plaintiffs also contend that as the result of the hostilities in January, 1982, they closed their busi—ness; that according to custom and the order by the Municipal Govern ment, the plaintiffs should be @x-empted from paying two months" rent; that the. defendants have refused all the demands of the plaintifis and so they brought this action. The plai tiffs produced four rent receipts, chit books and newspapers to substantiate their claim:
"Counsel for the defendants ask for dismissal of the action with costs and allege that the plaintifis have been their tenants of the said proerty; that they have been paying their rental at the present rate since January 1, 1981 at which time readjustment of the" said rental "was careed upon; that there might have been increases prior to the said time and if there were any, such increases Were made by the former owner. Which the' defendants took no Darts that at the. time when the tenants Agreed' to continue. the tenancy. the increased rate. there was oon tract "irom. which neither "party could withdraw without the consent fof the other, that ax the plain did for and colle not agree to the duction requested, the plaintiff cane hot alter the terms of such tenancy without the consent of the defendants, {kat as the plaintiff are tenants hionthty tenancy, they are always at Uberty to terminate such. by notice and. Vacating the premises if" they Shoutd consider the rental exhorbit. gat and unreasonable, that the, defendants should not' be forced "to rant a eduction; that the "only {round "upon which "the plaints Gould ask for a'redction of rent hey occupy has depreciated fu value atthe value' of the real" property that the plaintias have produced. mo evidence whatsoever to prove dep ciation of the property they osed that the order of the Muntelost Gov arniment only: permitted exemption of ent in the Hongkew area, what. berth of the Soochow Creek; that the Premises in "question are' situated South of the Soochow Creek; that the plaintifis demand for two months' rent exemption is therefore groundless.
"A contract when made with the agreement of the parties thereto is binding and cannot be altered' by
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.