Nam Wah Investment Co v Lo Mon Hung

Court:District Court (Hong Kong)
Judgement Number:DCMP18/1947
Judgment Date:03 Sep 1947
DCMP000018/1947 NAM WAH INVESTMENT CO v. LO MON HUNG

DCMP000018/1947

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

SUMMARY JURISDICTION

T.T. APPEAL 18/47

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

BETWEEN
NAM WAH INVESTMENT COMPANY Appellants

AND

LO MON HUNG Respondent

Coram: Mr Justice T.J. Gould

Date of Judgment: 3 September 1947

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. This is an appeal from the decision of a Tenancy Tribunal refusing to hear an application for eviction brought under Article 5(1) (a) of the Landlord & Tenant Proclamation. The grounds given by the Tribunal for the decision are expressed as follows : -

"The Tribunal decides that there are no grounds for the applications under the new Ordinance and by virtue of the Ordinance, the Proclamation does not apply to this case."

2. Other applications besides the one under appeal are stated to be affected.

3. Article 5(1) (a) of the Proclamation gave power to any Tenancy Tribunal to order eviction of any person who in the opinion of the Tribunal did not bona fide claim possession under a landlord or his predecessor. The Proclamation was repealed by the Landlord and Tenant Ordinance, 1947, which does not re-enact Article 5(1) (a) of the Proclamation, leaving the landlord in such a case to his action for possession in the Courts. The application now under consideration was issued some six months before the repeal of the Proclamation but did not come on for hearing until after such repeal.

4. No specific reasons were given by the Tribunal for its decision but I was informed by counsel that it relied upon the repealing section (section 38) and upon Sect.5(1) of the Ordinance the first portion of which runs as follows: -

"5(1) No order against a tenant for the recovery of possession of or for ejectment from any premises to which this Ordinance applies shall be made otherwise than under the provisions of this Ordinance ....."

5. In coming to its decision the Tribunal has apparently overlooked or disregarded Sect.27(3) of the Ordinance which is in the following terms : -

"(3) Subject to the provisions of Section 12 of the Interpretation Ordinance, 1911, all proceedings pending before any Tenancy Tribunal at the commencement of this Ordinance shall be continued before such Tribunal in all respects as if the same had been commenced under the provisions of this Ordinance.

6. This subsection...

To continue reading

Request your trial