Tang Kwai Yuk v Law Pong Shing

Court:District Court (Hong Kong)
Judgement Number:DCCJ3845/1971
Judgment Date:31 Dec 1971
DCCJ003845/1971 TANG KWAI YUK v. LAW PONG SHING

DCCJ003845/1971

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF HONG KONG

HOLDEN AT KOWLOON

CIVIL JURISDICTION

ACTION No. 3845 of 1971

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

BETWEEN: TANG Kwai Yuk Plaintiff
and
LAW Pong Shing Defendant

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

Coram: Judge Davies.

Date of Judgment: 31st December, 1971.

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. The issues to be determined in this case are very clear-cut.

2. The parties are both agreed that the plaintiff served on the defendant, and caused to be duly posted at the premises, a notice to quit.

3. This notice, which complied in all respects with the requirements of section 3(1), (2) and (3) of the Tenancy (Notice of Termination) Ordinance, purported to determine the defendant's tenancy of the plaintiff's premises with effect from 9th June 1971.

4. The plaintiff has throughout relied on the provisions of that Ordinance.

5. The defendant on the other hand contends that his tenancy falls within the purview of the Rent Increases (Domestic Premises) Control Ordinance, that the notice to which I have just referred does not comply with the provisions of that Ordinance, and is therefore not a valid notice.

6. This conflict raises a point of law, and it is appropriate that I should deal with it first.

7. The issue clearly depends upon whether, at the inception of the tenancy (which was in August 1965), the defendant did or did not, pay any key or construction money or premium to the plaintiff.

8. It is ground common to both sides that the premises were and are excluded from the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Ordinance.

9. The question arises next however, whether they fell within the provisions of the Tenancy (Prolonged Duration) Ordinance.

10. This is determinable by reference to section 5 of that Ordinance, subsection 2(b) of which enacts that the said Ordinance shall not apply to any case in which the Court is satisfied by evidence that no key or construction money or other similar premium has been paid.

11. It is the case for the plaintiff that such money was paid, and that the tenancy, having commenced after 1st July 1963, was accordingly by virtue of section 3(1) of that Ordinance, protected thereunder for a period of 5 years from the date of its inception.

12. The case for the defendant is that no key or construction money or premium was paid, and that the tenancy has neverfallen within the protection of that Ordinance.

13. The importance of this question becomes manifest when reference is made to the Rent Increases (Domestic Premises) Control Ordinance 1970 section 3(5)(1), which provides that the said Ordinance shall...

To continue reading

Request your trial