Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

Cheng Sang v Tam Cheong

Judgment Cited authorities 2 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date27 April 1946
Year1946
Judgement NumberDCMP11/1946
Subject MatterMiscellaneous Proceedings
CourtDistrict Court (Hong Kong)
DCMP000011/1946 CHENG SANG v. TAM CHEONG

DCMP000011/1946

THE STANDING MILITARY COURT OF HONGKONG

GENERAL MILITARY COURT

TENANCY TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO.11 OF 1946

(Application No.237)

-----------------

BETWEEN
Cheng Sang Appellant
(Opponent)

AND
Tam Cheong Respondent
(Applicant)

Coram: Mr. Justice Les D'Almada, President

Date of Judgment: 27 April 1946

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

1. The undisputed facts are :-

1. Appellant was Principal Tenant of the premises from before the Pacific war until May, 1945.

2. The tenancy was a monthly one.

3. From shortly after the surrender of the Colony, the landlord ceased to collect rent.

4. The Respondent became Sub-Tenant of the Appellant early in 1945.

5. Appellant and his family left the premises about May, 1945, leaving certain belongings in the premises and without giving notice to the landlord.

6. The Respondent thereafter continued to pay rent to the Appellant's brother whom he had appointed as agent for the purpose.

7. With this rent the agent paid the rates and taxes for the premises until the re-occupation of the Colony.

8. After the re-occupation the Respondent became tenant of the whole premises by agreement with the landlord.

9. On his return to Hong Kong in November last, the Appellant was permitted by the Respondent to live in the premises for a few days without paying any rent. He outstayed his welcome in consequence of which an eviction Order was obtained against him.

2. Against this Order this Appeal was brought. Before the Tribunal the Appellant relied inter alia on an agreement with the Respondent by which he alleges the Respondent took over the whole of the premises from him and undertook to give him back possession of that part which he was formerly occupying on the termination of hostilities.

3. This alleged agreement is not referred to in the Findings of the Tribunal. I will assume therefore that it was not proved although I must say I regard it as significant that the letter which Appellant's solicitors wrote to the Respondent on the 12th November last, setting out the agreement, was not answered by the Respondent. One would expect that had this agreement not been entered into there would be an immediate denial of it. However, for the purpose of this Appeal I propose to ignore it.

4. The ground for the Tribunal's Order must be, as Mr.Kwan has argued, the following which I quote from the Findings:-

"In law the Tribunal feels that the Appellant has no reason to maintain that he could claim from the landlord a tenancy after he has quitted the premises and gone back to the country and had not paid rent...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT