Leung Lai-ping v Wen Sau-chung And Another

CourtDistrict Court (Hong Kong)
Judgement NumberDCCJ2214/1980
Subject MatterCivil Action
DCCJ002214/1980 LEUNG LAI-PING v. WEN SAU-CHUNG AND ANOTHER

DCCJ002214/1980

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF HONG KONG

HOLDEN AT VICTORIA

CIVIL JURISDICTION

ACTION NO. 2214 OF 3980

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

BETWEEN LEUNG Lai-ping Plaintiff
and
WEN Sau-chung
CHEUNG Wai-lap Defendant

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

Coram: Judge Jones

Date of Judgement: 10 November 1980

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

JUDGEMENT

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

1. This is an action for possession of 5 Min Fat Street, 2nd floor, Flat B under Section 53(2)(b) of the Landlord and Tenant (Consolidation) Ordinance that the premises are reasonably required by the plaintiff as a residence for herself. It is agreed that the plaintiff is the registered owner of the premises.

2. The plaintiff is a part time amah. She lives with her 18 year old niece in a cubicle at 13 Luen Hing Street, lst floor, Happy Valley. Until her niece came to live with her two years ago from Mainland China the plaintiff shared a cubicle with her aunt at 4 Catchilk Street, 2nd floor, Western. The aunt who relies upon the plaintiff for her support still lives at this address on her own.

3. The plaintiff seeks an order for possession of the suit premises for herself, her niece and aunt.

4. The suit premises were let to the defendants by a tenancy agreement dated the 7th December 1976 for a period of three years which expired on the 9th November 1979. Since that time the defendants have held over from month ...(illegible).

5. The suit premises which has an area of about 300 square feet is divided into two cubicles, one sitting room, kitchen and lavatory. One cubicle is occupied by the first defendant a single man aged 28, his father aged 63, a brother aged 25 and a sister aged 22. The second cubicle is occupied by the second defendant a single man aged 26, his grandmother aged 90 and his mother aged 60.

6. The plaintiff purchased the suit premises eleven years ago with vacant possession. However, she did not occupy the premises herself because her income was insufficient to pay the mortgage instalments. Consequently the premises have been let. The full amount of the purchase price has now been paid.

7. It is clear that when considering whether the plaintiff reasonably requires possession for her own use, the situation of the niece, and the aunt may be taken into account. The plaintiff is aged 51, the niece 18, and the aunt 70.

8. The two...

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