Lo Mon Hung And Others v Nam Yan Investment Co

Court:District Court (Hong Kong)
Judgement Number:DCMP6/1948
Judgment Date:02 Apr 1948
DCMP000006/1948 LO MON HUNG AND OTHERS v. NAM YAN INVESTMENT CO

DCMP000006/1948

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

SUMMARY JURISDICTION

TENANCY TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO. 6 of 1948

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

(T.T. Application No. K574-578/46)

BETWEEN
LO Mon Hung, Kin Hing Firm, Yan Woo Firm, Cheung Kee Firm and Wong Wan Appellants (Opponents)

AND

Nam Wan Investment Company Respondents (Applicants)

Coram: Gould J.

Date of Judgment: 2 April 1948

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. This is an appeal against the decision of a Tenancy Tribunal dated the 12th February, 1948, ordering the eviction of the respective appellants who were the opponents in applications Nos.K574-578 (inclusive). The applications were consolidated for the purpose of the hearing and of the appeal and by agreement. The Tribunal's notes of evidence were supplemented by notes taken at the hearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The question was one of the existence or otherwise of tenancies and the Tribunal ruled, in my view correctly in the particular circumstances, that the appellants should call their evidence first. They did so, and it amounted to a claim that they had become tenants of the premises under and by virtue of lettings from one Tang Chung Li who was either by direct authority or by holding out the authorised agent of the landlord. Tang Chung Li himself, who was present at the hearing on subpoena and was called by the appellants gave evidence to the contrary. He denied that he had any authority from the landlord to let the premises, stating that he was a care-taker without remuneration. When the landlord discovered that there were people living in the premises, he had told him that they were acquaintances staying there temporarily. Tang Chung Li further stated that he told the landlord that he had accepted tea-money because he looked after the houses without pay. In brief, there was evidence given by the appellants (or some of them) upon which the Tribunal could have held either that there was a direct authorization of Tang Chung Li by the landlord or that the landlord was estopped from denying agency; there was, on the other hand, evidence given by Tang Chung Li which, if believed by the Tribunal in preference to that of the appellants', would negative estoppel insofar as it implied that the landlord did not know that the appellants were relying on...

To continue reading

Request your trial