The specific KH mentioned in my memories was built in the late 40s early 50s . Then no charitable status was possible for individual congregations and the deeds of course referenced only the land purchased pre the build of the KH. Those deeds were in the names of two local brothers, servants as then known, buth anointed and in their 70s. The Hall cdwas built using voluntary labour of around 8 or so brothers, who after a day's work as miners worked in every weather using any scrap materials they could find and those they could afford. The built hall was dedicated as a Kingdom Hall and used for regular meetings thereafter. When the incident referred to happened few if any UK congregations were registered charities, as indeed this one was not either. So at that time, if it had ceased operations, its funds, as against the building, would have been shared with the congregations members then attended in proportion to numbers of members. The value of any sale of the land and in situ KH would follow as similar pattern. While still in existence the congregation could vote on a resolution as to the use of those funds,
In ,I think, 1997 British congregations voted on and if agreed accepted a uniform Constitution which among other things described how in any cessation of the congregation spare fu do would automatically transfer to WT in one of its legal entities. Prior to such cessation a congregation could of course vote to spend/donate those funds in any way they chose. Of course, with the new constitution, elders assumed a new and challenging legal role, as trustees, As such their fiduciary conduct required them to observe the law and best interests of THAT charity of which they were trustees. The standard constitution was drafted, I believe, by a brother n Devizes, a solicitor. This situation was a major change in many things, including the annual returns to the Charity Commission.
My fil , in the early 70s, was defending a place of worship he and companions had sweated blood building and any suggestion to simply dump that place for its financial worth irritated him intensely. He had no intention of sharing around any assets from a sale, or of donating them to the far off WT. His view, and still mine today, was that any assets be used locally to support what he saw as his duty to provide a base for promoting the truth. The 97 constitution. Was a wordy document that was read to the congregation before accepting it. It contained many clauses that have now gone beyond what we expected to allow the use of KH assets to be used by the society for non Kingdom Hall construction or maintenance, even being transferred abroad, as with the millions recently sent to the Selters, German branch.
In brief summation of your question, what did he expect to happen to assets etc on congregation cessation, first, congregation cessation was an impossible concept, the only one use was if a new and better facility was needed locally either by this congregation or in partnership with an immwdiate neighbour. In his day and his fathers and indeed his fathers, local ecclesias stood alone and had to be defended at all costs by locals, with no help from Mill Hill, in retrospect MHs only help was directing the builders to a roof component supplier, an asbestos roof that was a nightmare to replace.Back then so few KHs existed that the concept of building one to merely sell to provide funds for WT was laughable. The congregation understood that the land and the building were owned by the Zzzz congregation of Jehovah's witnesses, and always would be in this system, which they did not think would be long. So views and rules on congregation cessation did not exist.