Pang Hang Fong v To Yuk Lin

Court:District Court (Hong Kong)
Judgement Number:DCCJ2158/1971
Judgment Date:18 May 1972
DCCJ002158/1971 PANG HANG FONG v. TO YUK LIN

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF HONG KONG

HOLDEN AT VICTORIA

CIVIL JURISDICTION

ACTION NO. 2158 OF 1971

_________________

Between

PANG HANG FONG

Plaintiff

and

TO YUK LIN

Defendant

_________________

Coram: D. Cons, D.J.

_________________

JUDGMENT

_________________

1. This is an action to recover premises based on a notice to quit issued in accordance with Section 7(2)(a) of the Rent Increases (Domestic Premises) Control Ordinance specifying that the landlord required possession for use as a dwelling by herself. The writ further alleges that no counter-notice was served in accordance with Section 7(6) of the same Ordinance. The plaintiff now applies for summary judgment.

2. The defendant appears in person. Taken through the Particulars of Claim in Court she admitted every matter alleged therein except the lack of a counter notice. It appears now that she did serve a notice and she has produced to me a “copy” of a document in Chinese characters. The “original” was a translation thereof sent to the plaintiff’s then solicitors by registered post. The plaintiff acknowledges receipt of such a document but submits that, as it is not in the form specified by the Commissioner of Rating and Valuation under Section 19 of the Ordinance, it is of non-effect.

3. It is difficult to avoid sympathy with the defendant. This is not a case where a tenant has been too idle to avail himself of the rights clearly brought to his attention in a notice to quit. The defendant did within the 2 weeks prescribed make known in writing to the plaintiff both her objection to moving out of the premises and the possibility of hardship. Unfortunately she did not use the officially sanctioned words. On the other hand it would be unfair to imply that the plaintiff has acted harshly. She has not seriously pressed her claim for almost one year and is still willing to delay for a further six months if the defendant would agree to vacate at that stage.

4. When this matter was raised in Court my immediate instinct was that the plaintiff’s application was unanswerable. Section 7(6) leaves room for no possible doubt. It says expressly that the tenant may serve “a counter notice in the specified form”. But I reserved judgment in the hope that upon research some means might be found to mitigate the effect of those words in these...

To continue reading

Request your trial