View report page

50
premium proportionate to the annuity (or ground rent)
secured by the lease to the ground landlord. The premium
in this case goes to the assignor of the lease, and not to the
freeholder. The assignor of the lease, who derives more
immediate benefit from the development of the property than
the freeholder, would not be touched by the rating of ground
rents.
13.—The rating of ground rents or "ground values" would not
touch what is probably the most serious case of hardship to
retail traders throughout London, especially in the West
End, where the rents are highest, namely, the large increase
of rent frequently demanded of traders on the renewal of
their leases if the traders are bound to the locality or, still
more, to the identical premises for business reasons. In cases
of this kind, the exacting landlord is invariably an intermediate
lessor, and, speaking generally, a trader is treated on
better terms when he requires a renewal of his lease if his
premises form part of a large estate than if they belong to a
needy freeholder. The rating of ground rents would not
affect the intermediate lessor.
14.—The only remedy for the hardship mentioned in the preceding
paragraph appears to be the conferring of jurisdiction upon
the County Court Judge (or some similar tribunal) to fix the
rent of business premises if an apparently excessive rent or
premium is demanded on renewal. This jurisdiction need not
extend to private houses, because mere residents are not tied
to a locality like a trader who has identified his business with
particular premises. The latter person is largely at the
mercy of his lessor, for if he were to leave, an unscrupulous
man might take the premises and carry on a similar business
without paying a penny for goodwill, unless patent rights
were involved, to the evident detriment of the original trader
though he had removed but a short distance. The remedy
suggested, however, is not free from objection. Leasehold
enfranchisement would not be a remedy, but the abolition of
sub-letting and speculation in lands and houses would be
advantageous. In no case would there then be more than two
persons interested in the holding, viz., the ground landlord