Shum Fong v Wong Pit Hing

CourtDistrict Court (Hong Kong)
Judgment Date31 October 1946
Judgement NumberDCMP34/1946
Subject MatterMiscellaneous Proceedings




APPEAL No. 34 of 1946

Shum Fong Appellant


Wong Pit Hing Respondent

Coram: E.H. Williams, Puisne Judge

Date of Judgment: 31 October 1946




1. This is an appeal from the order of a Tenancy Tribunal giving the respondent possession of 8 Hanoi Road, of which she is the owner, and which is at present occupied by the appellant as principal tenant. The grounds of the appeal were that the decision was against the weight of the evidence and was wrong in law. The grounds of it's being wrong in law were set out in a letter from solicitors for the appellant, the main one being that there was insufficient evidence to prove there was no other suitable accommodation available for the respondent.

2. The application to the Tribunal was based on paragraph 1A(1) of Article 5 of the Proclamation i.e. , the landlord required the premises for her own use. The reasons for and facts in support of the application appear quite inconsistent. In one part it is claimed that opponent was not a tenant - she had entered into possession without the knowledge and consent of the respondent. Later it was stated that due notice to quit had been given - such notice was the ordinary letter to a tenant warning the person to vacate premises held on a monthly tenancy.

3. The grounds for opposition were briefly that the application was "res judicata", a similar application having been refused by a previous Tribunal.

4. At the hearing before the Tribunal, solicitors for both partles were heard on the point of "res judicata" and it decided in favour of respondent on that point.

5. Evidence then was heard by the Tribunal. It is clear from the record that no point was taken by the respondent that appellant was not a proper monthly tenant. The application being under paragraph 1A(1) of Article 5, no such point should have been taken.

6. The evidence necessary, to support the application was that the landlord (respondent), having given due notice to quit, required the premises for her own use and could get no other suitable accommodation. In support of the case, the respondent stated she had not looked for other premises but had given instructions to her nephew in consequence of which, as he stated, he had made inquiries from...

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