Lam Kam v Lui Kung Pok

Court:District Court (Hong Kong)
Judgement Number:DCCJ1930/1971





ACTION NO. 1930 OF 1971

R.I.A. NO. 147 OF 1971


Between LAM KAM Plaintiff/Applicant
LUI KUNG POK Defendant/Respondent


Coram: D. Cons, D.J.

Date of Judgment:




1. In these proceedings I have to deal with two actions, namely an application under Section 7(7) of the Rent Increases (Domestic Premises) Control Ordinance Cap.338 and a normal District Court writ for the recovery of possession together with arrears of rent and mesne profits. At one stage an application was made for consolidation. It was refused by one of my learned brothers on the ground that evidence as to greater hardship would not be material in the action upon the writ. With respect to my learned brother I think that was a correct decision. The two actions were therefore tried separately, but on the same day, and what I am now reading is technically a separate judgment in each action. For convenience I read both at the same time.

2. The duplicity of actions has arisen because at one stage, when dealing with matters that are now merely history, one of my learned brothers in Kowloon declined to follow the case of Tiu Chi Sang v. Li Hau Man (1963) D.C.L.R., 187, in so far as that case lays down that the correct procedure to recover possession where the tenant has served no counter-notice to a notice to quit complying with Section 7(2) of the Rent Increases Ordinance, is by way of writ. But Mr. Mak, who appears for the applicant, profited from the knowledge of his more learned opponent and apparently thought it wise to cover himself, as it were, both ways. Without withdrawing the Rent Increase Application he had already filed, he sued out a further remedy by way of writ.

3. The facts as I find them are as follows. In September of 1968 Madam Lam Kam, to whom I will refer as "the landlord", a widow with one son, entered into a written tenancy with Mr. Lui Kung Pok, "the tenant". At the same time she intimated to him that if her son should not marry within a period of three years then he could expect to retain the tenancy for that length of time. This intimation was not incorporated into the written agreement. I am quite satisfied that neither side then intended that it should create binding legal relations between them. The tenancy was nothing more than a normal monthly tenancy. The rent has since been increased by agreement but that is neither here nor there.

4. Two years later, in the November, the landlord sent a notice in Chinese characters to the tenant requiring him to give up the premises within 3 months on the ground that her son intended to marry and wanted the premises for his own use. It was not a valid notice within the Rent Increases...

To continue reading

Request your trial