Hultucktong Co Ltd v Yeung Chim Fu

Court:District Court (Hong Kong)
Judgement Number:DCMP1/1970
Judgment Date:31 Jul 1971
DCMP000001/1970 HULTUCKTONG CO LTD v. YEUNG CHIM FU

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF HONG KONG

HOLDEN AT VICTORIA

CIVIL JURISDICTION

RENT INCREASES APPEAL NO.1 OF 1970

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

Hultucktong Company, Ltd. Applicant
and
Yeung Chim Fu Respondent

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

Coram: W.S. Collier, D.J., assisted by Mr. P.C. Cotton, A.R.I.C.S., B. Sc. (Est. Man.) Lond., Assessor.

Date of Judgment: 31 July 1971

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

Verbal Judgment Reduced into Writing

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

1. This was an appeal by the landlord against a decision of the Commissioner of Rating and Valuation assisted by the Rent Increases Advisory Panel under subsections (3) and (4) of section 11 of the Rent Increases (Domestic Premises) Control Ordinance, No.56 of 1970.

2. Mr. P.C.Cotton was appointed as Assessor under the provisions of section 16 of the Ordinance.

3. Having viewed the premises and having discussed the provisions of this Ordinance with me at some length, and the written submission of the appellant corporation, Mr. Cotton put his advice in writing as follows:-

" 44, Wharf Road, North Point
Ground Floor
I have now had the opportunity of going into the case submitted by Mr. Ng Po cum on behalf of the appellants, Hultucktong Company Limited.
The two main points made are:-
(1) That the rateable value is $4,610 which is equivalent to a monthly rental of $450 per month inclusive of rates.
(2) That as the sub-tenant has let the 'bath and laundry' at the rear for a figure of $90 per month it followed by proportion that the full rental value of the flat is $600 per month inclusive of rates.
With regard to the first point it would appear that the rental value has been assessed for rating by comparison with other ground floor premises in the same street, most of which are used for light industrial, commercial and other non-domestic purposes. It seems to me that if we are to value the premises under the provisions of the Rent Increases (Domestic Premises) Control Ordinance 1970 we should only concern ourselves with the value for domestic occupation particularly as the Building Ordinance Occupation Certificate was issued in respect of a domestic unit. No doubt if the Ordinance had not been passed Mr. Ng's Company would have obtained possession and let it
...

To continue reading

Request your trial