Chiu Ching Wan v Lui Fuk Kam

Court:District Court (Hong Kong)
Judgement Number:DCCJ564/1971
Judgment Date:18 Nov 1971
DCCJ000564/1971 CHIU CHING WAN v. LUI FUK KAM

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF HONG KONG

HOLDEN AT VICTORIA

CIVIL JURISDICTION

ACTION NO. 564 OF 1971

_______________

BETWEEN

CHIU CHING WAN

Plaintiff

And

LUI FUK KAM

Defendant

_______________

Coram: Cons, D.J. in Court

_______________

JUDGMENT

_______________

1. This is a claim by a landlord for 6 months’ arrears of rents. His evidence is that in November 1969 he verbally granted to the defendant a monthly tenancy at the rent of $440. The premises in question are business premises. In August 1970, being desirous to sell the premises, he served on the defendant a 6 months’ notice to quit after receipt of which the defendant has failed and refused to pay any further rent. In December, he says, there were certain negotiations between them with a view to the purchase of the premises but the negotiations came to nothing. The notice to quit expired on the 28th of February this year but the defendant has failed to hand over the premises. The landlord’s evidence is substantiated by that of his brother who acted as rent-collector on his behalf.

2. The defendant’s evidence is very much at variance with this story. According to him it was not an oral monthly tenancy but a written five year lease, which, after completion by the defendant, the landlord has retained under the pretext of having it duly stamped. Despite requests he has at all times refused to deliver a copy to the defendant. Following the notice to quit in August the defendant made several unsuccessful attempts to contact the landlord finally doing so in October. The meeting was stormy. The landlord intimated that without a copy of the written agreement the defendant did not have a leg to stand on. Eventually, after refusing an offer to purchase, the defendant was forced to acquiesce and agreed to vacate by the end of the following February, the landlord in his turn agreeing to take the two months’ deposit paid by the defendant as rent for the months of September and October already due and to waive the rent for the following four months to compensate the defendant for money expended on decoration and the installation of electricity.

3. The defendant moved out more than one month before the agreed date, namely on the 8th of January, having purchased similar premises 2 doors away. On that date, he says, he informed the landlord’s...

To continue reading

Request your trial