Ng Wan, Proprietor Of Sang Kee v So Yim

Court:District Court (Hong Kong)
Judgement Number:DCMP24/1947
Judgment Date:28 Nov 1947
DCMP000024/1947 NG WAN, PROPRIETOR OF SANG KEE v. SO YIM

DCMP000024/1947

APPEAL NO. 24 of 1947

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

BETWEEN
Ng Wan, Proprietor of Sang Kee Appellant
(Applicant)

AND

So Yim Respondent
(Opponent)

Coram: Mr. Justice T.J. Gould.

Date of Judgment: 28 November 1947

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. This is an appeal from a decision of a Tenancy Tribunal refusing an order against the respondent for possession of part of the ground floor of No.155 Connaught Road, Central. The refusal of this order is contained by implication in the words of the decision of the Tribunal which are as follows:-

"Opponent is to pay from October 1st, 1947, $11.50 p.m. to applicant as principal tenant. If he is to get back his tenancy, he should take legal proceedings accordingly."

The grounds upon which the original application was based are difficult to ascertain from the "Reasons for the application" which were drawn apparently by the appellant himself or at any rate by some person without legal qualifications. The Tribunal apparently assumed, and I think rightly, that there was only one ground - that the respondent did not bona fide claim under a landlord (Article 5 1(a) of the Landlord & Tenant Proclamation). The reference to non-payment of rent in paragraph 6 of the "Reasons" is intended, I think, to support this ground and not to be understood as alleging that the respondent is a subtenant of the appellant and that his rent is in arrear. The grounds of the appeal are that the Tribunal's decision was against the weight of evidence and wrong in law in the two following respects:

(a) In that the subject matter of the application is one in which the Tribunal had no jurisdiction and
(b) in that the respondent was not at all material times a tenant of the appellant.

2. To say the least, each of these grounds in law might have been better expressed. As to the first of them, the Tribunal obviously had jurisdiction to make or refuse an order for eviction, though to the extent that it went further than that, its decision may be open to objection. The second ground reads more like a statement of fact than a ground of appeal in law, but I assume it to mean that the established facts show the respondent to have been something less than a tenant e.g. a licensee, invitee or trespasser.

3. The notes of the proceedings...

To continue reading

Request your trial