P.h. Foo And Others v Tam May Ling

Court:District Court (Hong Kong)
Judgement Number:DCCJ4460/1970
Judgment Date:21 Jul 1971
DCCJ004460/1970 P.H. FOO AND OTHERS v. TAM MAY LING

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF HONG KONG

HOLDEN AT VICTORIA

CIVIL JURISDICTION

ACTION NO. 4460 OF 1970.

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

P.H. Foo 1st Plaintiff
Pang Cheu Kwong 2nd Plaintiff
Lee Hon Pong 3rd Plaintiff
and
Tam May Ling Defendant

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

Coram: W.S. Collier, D.J.

Date of Judgment: 21.7.71

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

Verbal Judgment reduced into writing

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

1. In this case, there was, originally, an application for an order for possession under the Rent Increases (Domestic Premises) Control Ordinance 56 of 1970. An Order for possession was made by consent, between the landlord and principal tenant. Some few days later, the sub-tenants, the Plaintiffs in this action, applied to be joined as Respondents in the application under the Rent Increases (Domestic Premises) Control Ordinance. As they had served no counter notice (and, indeed, upon their affidavits they had no opportunity so to do, having had no notice of the notice to quit) they could not be joined as respondents to the application.

2. They therefore commenced this action as plaintiffs prying for, mainly, an injunction restraining the defendant landlords from interfering with the plaintiffs' quiet enjoyment of the premises under their sub-tenancy.

3. I was asked by the solicitors to both parties to decide one point as a preliminary point. The solicitor for the defendant said that his evidence would be, that on each of three successive days, his clerk went to the premises in question and there posted up a copy of the notice to quit and that on the second and third days, when he attended the premises, he found that the notice he had posted on the previous day was no longer there.

4. Mr. McElney, for the plaintiffs, submitted, with some hesitation, having regard to the obvious practical difficulties that would arise, were he correct in his submission, that the words in subsection (3) of section 7 of the Rent Increases (Domestic Premises) Control Ordinance "is displayed for three successive days" mean what they say and that, accordingly, it is not sufficient to post a notice on three successive days; the notice must be prominently affixed and must remain so for three successive days before the notice to quit can take effect on sub-tenancies.

5. In support...

To continue reading

Request your trial