Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

Pun Chung Yue v Yum Wai Tong

Judgment Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date06 January 1947
Subject MatterMiscellaneous Proceedings
Judgement NumberDCMP53/1946
CourtDistrict Court (Hong Kong)
DCMP000053/1946 Pun CHUNG YUE v. YUM WAI TONG

DCMP000053/1946

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

SUMMARY JURISDICTION

TENANCY APPEAL No. 53 of 1946.

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

BETWEEN
Pun Chung Yue Appellant
(Applicant)

AND
Yum Wai Tong Respondent
(Opponent)

Coram: Mr. Justice T.J. Gould

Date of Judgment: 6 January 1947

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. This appeal was from the decision of a Tenancy Tribunal directing the surrender by the respondent to the appellant of the ground floor and garage at No. 8, Strafford Rd., Kowloon Tong; the appeal was heard on the 2nd January 1947 and was allowed, the Court agreeing to give it's reasons in writing. The application before the Tribunal was in respect of both ground and first floors and the appellant contended at the hearing that the order as made was bad in law.

2. The facts are straight forward and it is acknowledged that the Tribunal found as a fact that the appellant had no suitable alternative accommodation available; this finding was not challenged at the hearing of the appeal. The ground floor of the premises is in occupation of a subtenant (though it appears that this fact was unknown to the appellant until after his application had been filed) and the subtenant was not made a party to the proceedings. Nevertheless the Tribunal made an order which was in effect an order for the eviction of the subtenant, leaving the respondent in undisturbed possession of the first floor.

3. The grounds reiled upon by counsel for the appellant are two:

(a) That the order was bad inasmuch as it evicted a subtenant who was not a party to the proceedings without evicting the principal tenant.

(b) That the Tribunal had no power under the Proclamation to order a division of the promises and should therefore, upon the finding that the appellant had no suitable alternative accomodation, have made an order for the possession of the whole.

4. In support of the first ground the appellant relied on Article 5 (4) of the Proclamation which is as follows:-

"(4) Any order of eviction against any Principal Tenant shall not unless the Tribunal otherwise directs operate as an eviction of any Sub-tenant". It follows from this that a Tribunal which makes an eviction order against a principal tenant may direct the eviction of a subtenant as well. But here...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT