§ (1) For the purposes of this Part of this Act, the total value of minerals means the amount which the fee simple of the minerals, if sold in the open market by a willing seller in their then condition, might be expected to realise, and the capital value of minerals means the total value, after allowing such deduction (if any) as the Commissioners may allow for any works executed or expenditure of a capital nature incurred bonâ fide by or on behalf of any person interested in the minerals for the purpose of bringing the minerals into working, or where the minerals have been partly worked, such deduction as is, in the opinion of the Commissioners, proportionate to the amount of minerals which have not been worked.
§ (2) For the purposes of valuation under this Part of this Act, all minerals shall be treated as a separate parcel of land; but where the minerals are not comprised in a mining lease or being worked, they shall be treated as having no value as minerals, unless the owner of the land in which they 648 are comprised, in his return furnished to the Commissioners, specifies the nature of the minerals and his estimate of their capital value.
§ Minerals which are comprised in a mining lease or are being worked shall be treated as a separate parcel of land, not only for the purposes of valuation, but also for the purpose of the assessment of duty under this Part of this Act.
§ (3) Except where the context otherwise requires, any references in this Part of this Act to the site value of land shall, in cases where the land consists solely of minerals, or comprises minerals, be construed, so far as respects the minerals, as a reference to the capital value of the minerals.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPE moved, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words: "Provided that the Commissioners shall allow as a deduction from the total value of the minerals any sum which the working of such minerals would detract from the site value of the land wherein they are comprised."
§ I move this Amendment with some diffidence, because I quite admit it may possibly be unnecessary, as I am not altogether clear about the proposals as pro- 649 posed to be amended with regard to valuation. What I understand is that in a great number of cases land with minerals underneath it will be absolutely separately valued. One value will be put on the site and another on what is called the capital value of the minerals; and these will be absolutely distinct. The owner will be charged on two values, neither of which he can realise. If he tries to realise on one, he will lose something on the other. I do not profess to know much about this from the colliery point of view, but I understand that very often building on the surface is impossible owing to subsidence. There is the case where the working of the minerals will almost destroy the site value of the land. I am rather sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer has gone out, because there is a case with which he is familiar. There is a certain golf links at Lewes, in Sussex, on the top of a down, which has been continually cut into by the opening of a quarry. The golf-house is on the top of the ridge, and half-way up there are other houses. This hill, in my time, has been very seriously encroached upon. If you take a site value for a piece of that down where it is valuable for building some part of the way up, there will be a site value and also a mineral value underneath it. Clearly here, if the owner of that land tried to get what he could out of the site value, he would prejudice the working of the minerals. If, on the other hand, he worked the minerals to the fullest degree he actually cuts the site value completely away. Yet under the provisions of the Bill he would be taxed both on site and mineral value. Therefore, I submit that there should be a direction to the valuers to take into account what would be the effect of attempting to develop in either direction when it is quite plain you cannot develop in both.
§ Viscount CASTLEREAGH
I beg to second. I think there is a certain amount of substance in what has been said—that the value of the one detracts from the value of the other. There are many such cases in Yorkshire and Durham, where the site value is of no value, because of the borings underneath.
§ Sir W. ROBSON
I think the hon. Member overlooks the fact that it would be the duty of the Commissioners, after assessing the amount which is to be made subject to duty, in each case to consider every element that affects the whole. Take 650 the case of chalk. Would any valuer say, "I am going to value this land as undeveloped land, and assess the duty accordingly, assuming that it will be treated for building only," and then say, while making the same valuation, "I am now going to value the land as if all the surface were torn off, so that no building could erected"? That would be very unreasonable and perfectly absurd.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPE
May I call attention to the second Sub-section, which says: "For the purposes of valuation under this part of this Act, all minerals shall be treated as a separate parcel of land"? Therefore there may be a separate mineral value.
§ Sir W. ROBSON
Of course they will be treated as separate. The Clause does not say that they are not to be considered. The hon. Member, in order to get ground for his Amendment, must suppose that one valuer is sent down who would carefully overlook the question of minerals and another is sent down who would carefully overlook the value of the surface. That, of course, is not so, and therefore the Amendment of the hon. Member disappears.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
But the Bill says the Commissioners shall go there. I understand the Government are going to have experts in land valuation and experts in mineral valuation. The Bill: provides that in each case the minerals are to be valued separately from the land. Accordingly the Commissioners will send down one man to value the site for building, and another, an expert in minerals, to look at the value of the minerals, and they will be valued separately. It is, as the Attorney-General says, a perfectly absurd result to arrive at, and one, I have no doubt, the Government did not contemplate. What there is in this Bill to prevent it I cannot see. On the contrary, it appears to me that everything in this Bill points to that course as the one which will have to be taken. It is extremely difficult to amend the Bill at this stage, but I think the Government would be well advised to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend if only to protect themselves against what they see is a gross absurdity, which they do not desire any more than we do.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 32; Noes, 119.647
|Division No. 833.]||AYES.||[12.55 p.m.|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)|
|Agnew, George William||Bryce, J. Annan||Corbett, A, Cameron (Glasgow)|
|Astbury, John Meir||Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Cameron, Robert||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.|
|Beale, W. P.||Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Cotton, Sir H. J. S.|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Chance, Frederick William||Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)|
|Bennett, E. N.||Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)|
|Brace, William||Cheetham, John Frederick||Erskine, David C.|
|Brigg, John||Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Essex, R. W.|
|Brooke, Stopford||Cough, William||Evans, Sir S. T.|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
|Falconer, James||Levy, Sir Maurice||Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)|
|Ferguson, R. C. Munro||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Fuller, John Michael F.||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Fullerton, Hugh||M'Callum, John M.||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)|
|Gibb, James (Harrow)||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Gibson, J. P.||Marnham, F. J.||Toulmin, George|
|Glendinning, R. G.||Massie, J.||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Masterman, C. F. G.||Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander|
|Greenwood, Hamar (York)||Morse, L. L.||Verney, F. W.|
|Gulland, John W.||Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)||Walsh, Stephen|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)||Myer, Horatio||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Haworth, Arthur A.||Parker, James (Halifax)||White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)|
|Helme, Norval Watson||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.||White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Higham, John Sharp||Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Hobart, Sir Robert||Rees, J. D.||Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Horniman, Emslie John||Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Hutton, Alfred Eddison||Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Hyde, Clarendon G.||Ridsdale, E. A.||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Idris, T. H. W.||Robinson, S.|
|Illingworth, Percy H.||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Rowlands, J.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.|
|King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.|
|Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)|
|Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.||Courthope, G. Loyd||Renwick, George|
|Balcarres, Lord||Craik Sir Henry||Starkey, John R.|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)||Faber, George Denison (York)||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)||Valentia, Viscount|
|Bertram, Julius||Haddock, George B.||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Younger, George|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Magnus, Sir Philip||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount Castlereagh and Sir John Randles.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r)||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)|
|Division No. 834.]||AYES.||[1.12 p.m.|
|Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.||Faber, George Denison (York)||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Balcarres, Lord||Foster, P. S.||Randles, Sir John Scurrah|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)||Gordon, J.||Renwick, George|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)||Starkey, John R.|
|Bertram, Julius||Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Haddock, George B.||Valentia, Viscount|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Hamilton, Marquess of||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Harris, Frederick Leverton||Younger, George|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r)||Kimber, Sir Henry||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. James Hope and Viscount Castlereagh.|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Magnus, Sir Philip|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Gibb, James (Harrow)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Agnew, George William||Gibson, J. P.||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Astbury, John Meir||Glendinning, R. G.||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)|
|Barker, Sir John||Greenwood, Hamar (York)||Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)|
|Beale, W. P.||Gulland, John W.||Rees, J. D.|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)||Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)|
|Bennett, E. N.||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||Ridsdale, E. A.|
|Brace, William||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)||Robinson, S.|
|Brigg, John||Haworth, Arthur A.||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|Brodie, H. C.||Hazleton, Richard||Rowlands, J.|
|Brooke, Stopford||Hedges, A. Paget||Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.|
|Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)||Helme, Norval Watson||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)|
|Cameron, Robert||Higham, John Sharp||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Hobart, Sir Robert||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight||Horniman, Emslie John||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Chance, Frederick William||Hutton, Alfred Eddison||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Hyde, Clarendon G.||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Idris, T. H. W.||Tomkinson, James|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Illingworth, Percy H.||Toulmin, George|
|Clough, William||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Verney, F. W.|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis||Walsh, Stephen|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)||Levy, Sir Maurice||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)|
|Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Erskine, David C.||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Essex, R. W.||M'Callum, John M.||Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Evans, Sir S. T.||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Marnham, F. J.||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Falconer, J.||Massie, J.||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Ferguson, R. C. Munro||Masterman, C. F. G.||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||Morse, L. L.|
|Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter||Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.|
|Fuller, John Michael F.||Myer, Horatio|
|Fullerton, Hugh||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)|
§ Sir W. ROBSON moved, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "owner of the land in which they are comprised," and to insert instead thereof the words "proprietor of the minerals."
§ Mr. J. BERTRAM
I put a question some time ago to the Attorney-General on this subject. I know he has got the word "proprietor" in the Definition Clause, and the only question is whether any obligation is thrown by the Bill upon any person defined as proprietor to make a return for this purpose. There is an obligation on the owner of the land to make a return, but very often the owner of the land is not the owner of the minerals, and I cannot 652 find that there is any obligation put upon the proprietor to make the return which is required.
§ Sir W. ROBSON
I do not think there is anything in the hon. Member's point, but I will see between now and the time when we get to the Clause dealing with the returns whether there is. We have defined "proprietor" in Section 24, and it is obviously better that we should deal with him as the proprietor throughout rather than as the owner of the land. The proprietor of the minerals is not always the owner of the land.
§ Amendment made.653
§ Sir J. RANDLES (for Mr. Laurence Hardy) moved, in Sub-section (2), after the word "value" ["his estimate of their capital value"], to insert the words "and the capital value so returned shall be treated as the original capital value of the minerals."
§ The object of this Amendment is simply to secure that the value shall be a fixed value settled by the owner or the proprietor in connection with the Increment Duty or the Increment Tax, and it fixes the point, at any rate, at which the proper deductions would count.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPE seconded the Amendment.
§ Sir W. ROBSON
The hon. Member has not explained the exact effect of the Amendment in relation to the Clause to which it is to be added. The description of the Clause reads, "Application of provisions as to total and site value to minerals," and he proposes to add words at the end of Sub-section (2), which reads, "For the purposes of valuation under this Part of this Act, all minerals shall be treated as a separate parcel of land; but where the minerals are not comprised in a mining lease or being worked, they shall be treated as having no value as minerals, unless the owner of the land in which they are comprised, in his return furnished to the Commissioners, specifies the nature of the minerals and his estimate of their capital value." Then the hon. Member desires to say that any return thus made by the owner shall be treated as the original capital value, giving no discretion whatever to the Commissioners in fixing the value. If that were adopted a man could fix what value he pleased.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Sir W. ROBSON moved, at the end of paragraph two of Sub-section (2), to insert: "(3) The provisions of this part of this Act with respect to valuation shall not apply to minerals which were, on the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, either comprised in a mining lease or being worked by the proprietor, so long as they are for the time being either comprised in a mining lease or being worked by the proprietor."
§ Perhaps I had better explain this Amendment as it is not a drafting one. The House will remember that minerals now comprised in a mining lease, or being worked by the proprietor, are subject only to a Royalty Duty, and they are not subject to Increment Value Duty. 654 The Royalty Duty is payable upon the amount of royalty, and it requires no valuation whatever—that is to say, you want no valuation of existing mineral property for the purpose of the Royalty Duty. Therefore, what is proposed by this Amendment is to exempt from valuation all those mineral properties which will pay royalties without paying Increment Value Duty. Of course, the Increment Value Duty falls on properties which are not being worked. There are two classes of mineral properties, properties which are unopened and which are valued like parcels of land, and upon which Increment Duty is paid in a capital sum—these minerals must be valued for the purpose of duty—and mineral property comprised in existing mining leases.
The reason, I understand, why the Government except this particular class of minerals from valuation is that they do not pay taxes. There may be a good deal to be said in favour of that, but it is not consistent with the general principles of the Bill. They have not confined valuation, in regard to other classes of property, to cases in which the tax is to be levied upon the valuation. On the contrary, land is to be valued, as I understand, all over the country, even land where no tax has to be raised at all. After all, the property dealt with by this Sub-section is going to be taxed and to have a special tax levied upon it. It is quite true that the tax can be estimated without going to the expense of valuation, but a great deal of land in this country is not going to have any tax put upon it at all under the Bill—or, at all events, that is the profession of the Government—and yet that land is going to be valued. There is an a fortiori argument for omitting that land from valuation, and, although that question is not before us in substance, I should like to know what principle the Government have now discovered that when you are not going to tax land it is useless to value it for the purpose of taxation.
§ Sir W. ROBSON
I think if the right hon. Gentleman's point is answered it may remove some misconception as to the scope and necessity for the valuation. The right hon. Gentleman has said that in several cases we are insisting on valuation where no tax will be levied. That is not the case. Take, for instance, agricultural land. We say, and I think rightly, that while agricultural land has only an agricultural value it will not be taxed. We 655 exempt it from all taxation in respect of its agricultural value. But agricultural land may become subject to Increment Value Duty. Supposing it passes from that category into the more important category of building land, it comes under taxation, and we must have a datum line from which to calculate our Increment Value Duty. Therefore we cannot help a universal valuation in order to get that datum line—I wish we could. But it should not be said that therefore, in that particular case, we are inflicting a valuation without reference to the existence or possibility of a tax.
May I ask if the Government are valuing Snowdon? A building value may accrue there in course of time.
§ Sir W. ROBSON
If the right hon. Gentleman had been apprehensive about Snowdon he might have moved to exempt that particular eminence.
§ Lord CASTLEREAGH
May I ask whether this is in the nature of an exemption? An exemption was made in Clause 22 with regard to increment when one lease was made, and then after an interval a second lease was made. Would it not be advantageous if this exemption was also put into this Amendment?
§ Amendment made to proposed Amendment: To add at the end the words "nor shall such provisions apply to any minerals which cease for a temporary period to be comprised in a mining lease or to be worked so long as the period does not exceed two years."—[Sir John Randles.]
§ Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.
§ Further Amendments made: In the first paragraph, to leave out the word "beneficially."
§ In the same paragraph to leave out the words "to any freehold estate."
§ In the same paragraph to leave out the word "in" ["possession in the minerals"], and to insert instead thereof the word "to."
§ In the same paragraph to leave out the words "including a mortgagor in possession, and," and to insert instead thereof the words "or to the rents and profits there of or any part of those rents and 656 profits, but does not include a person entitled as lessee other than."—[Sir W. Robson.]
§ Sir W. ROBSON moved, in the second paragraph, to leave out the words "includes yearly or other rent, toll, duty, royalty, or other reservation by the acre, the ton, or otherwise, and includes," and to insert instead thereof the words "shall in addition to the meaning assigned to it for the general purposes of this Part of this Act, be construed as including."
§ Sir W. ROBSON
Does the hon. Member complain at all? All that we are doing is this: Rent is already defined in the general definition clause. This drafting Amendment is dealing with the definition of the word "rent," and what we say is that, in addition to the ordinary meaning of rent, it shall include "any fine, premium, or foregift, and any payment, consideration, or benefit in the nature of a fine, premium, or "foregift." It is not an addition, and therefore there is no ground for the hon. Member's complaint. The Clause deals with matters which ought to be taken into account in estimating the value. If the lessee has paid a fine premium, or foregift, it is to his advantage that it should be taken into account.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPE
I submit that this Amendment is out of order, because it increases, or may increase, the charge on the subject.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPE
In some cases it would have a contrary effect. Under these mineral provisions there is to be a tax on rent, and the more there is included in the word "rent" the more tax can be levied from the subject. Under this Amendment there would undoubtedly be included in the tax receipts which would not under the present definition of rent be included. Therefore there would, in certain instances, be an increased charge on the subject, for the purpose of Mineral Duty.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
The Bill states: "The expression 'rent' includes yearly or other rent, toll, duty, royalty, or other reservation, by the acre, the ton, or otherwise, and includes any fine, premium, or foregift, and any payment, consideration, or 657 benefit in the nature of a fine, premium or foregift."
§ Amendment made.
§ Drafting Amendments also made.
§ Sir J. RANDLES
I beg to move, in paragraph (7), to leave out the words "being worked by a lessee" ["if the minerals are being worked by a lessee"] and insert instead thereof the words "comprised in a mining lease." It appears to me that "lessee" is rather a limiting word. I hope the Attorney-General will have no difficulty in accepting this small Amendment.
§ Sir W. ROBSON
I must say that the hon. Gentleman has not given much explanation of the Amendment. In a previous part of the Bill it is provided that a proprietor who works the minerals himself is to have the same benefit as if they were worked by a lessee.
§ Sir J. RANDLES
A colliery may be in a mining lease, but it may not necessarily be worked by the lessee.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
I am not quite sure that the Amendment would not impose an increased charge, on the subject. It might mean that minerals, though not worked at all, if comprised in a mining lease, would be liable to the duty.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Sir W. ROBSON
The Leader of the Opposition pointed out that some ambiguity might arise from the use of the word "district" in relation to the Mineral Rights Duty, and we have drafted a paragraph which, we think, will meet the point. We propose to insert it at the end of Clause 24. I am disposed myself to think that the courts would find no difficulty in construing the word "district." After all, the courts, when dealing with exemptions and with provisions for the benefit of the subject, do their best to give effect to what they believe to be the intention of the Legislature. The paragraph which we propose to insert is in these terms: "Where the circumstances in a district are such that, in the opinion of the Commissioners, it is impracticable to fix any sum which satisfactorily represents a rent customary in the district, the rent which would be paid under similar circumstances and ordinary conditions elsewhere, shall 658 be substituted for the rent customary in the district."
§ Amendment made.