Chow Wing v Yuen Chi-hung And Another

CourtDistrict Court (Hong Kong)
Judgement NumberDCCJ2713/1980
Subject MatterCivil Action
DCCJ002713/1980 CHOW WING v. YUEN CHI-HUNG AND ANOTHER

DCCJ002713/1980

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF HONG KONG

HOLDEN AT KOWLOON

CIVIL JURISDICTION

ACTION NO. 2713 OF 1980

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

BETWEEN CHOW Wing Plaintiff
and
YUEN Chi-hung 1st Defendant
WONG Pak-ping 2nd Defendant

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

Coram: H.H. Judge Barnes in Court

Date of Judgment: 15th July, 1980

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. In this case, the plaintiff seeks possession of the subject promises on two grounds. One ground being unlawful subletting and the other ground being that the plaintiff reasonably requires the promises for use as a dwelling for himself.

2. On the first ground, the plaintiff in order to succeed needs to show that the subletting occurred after December, 1973. The evidence before me clearly establishes that the subletting was before December, 1973 and therefore I rule that ground fails.

3. So, we come to the second ground which is the real matter in issue in this case. Firstly, I have to consider has the landlord proved that he reasonably requires the premises for occupation as a residence for himself? And the evidence as to this is: that the landlord himself is a man 80 years of age whose health is not as good asit used to be. He has got trouble with his legs. His wife who is 76 is suffering from heart trouble and there is a doctor's certificate which says that because of her illness, she has difficulty in climbing stairs. The landlord and his wife presently live in premises which are on the fourth floor of a building with no lift. So, although the landlord of these premises already has accommodation which has proved adequate for him for many many years now, there is in a sense a genuine present need for him and his wife to have premises where there is a lift service. So, to my mind, the landlord has established that he does reasonably require at least part of the premises for residence for himself and his wife.

4. So, the real question is: Has the tenant satisfied the Court that in all the circumstances of the case, it would be manifestly not just and would be manifestly not equitable if an order for possession were made?

5. A good deal of the tenant's evidence is unsatisfactory. Given every opportunity to explain how he expends his monthly income of $3,600.00, he made no effort to do so. He has a family of 5 daughters and one son...

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