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

The Ching Sum Co Ltd v The Occupiers Of No 16 Tai Yuen Street, 2Nd Floor

Judgment Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date15 March 1946
Year1946
Judgement NumberDCMP12/1946
Subject MatterMiscellaneous Proceedings
CourtDistrict Court (Hong Kong)
DCMP000012/1946 THE CHING SUM CO LTD v. THE OCCUPIERS OF NO 16 TAI YUEN STREET, 2ND FLOOR

DCMP000012/1946

GENERAL MILITARY COURT

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

Tenancy Tribunal

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

Appeal No.12/46

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

Application No.255

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

Between
The Ching Sum Co. Ltd. Appellants
(Applicants)

AND
The Occupiers of No.16 Tai Yuen Street, 2nd floor. Respondents
(Opponents)

Coram: Leo D'Almada, President

Date of Judgment: 15 March 1946

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

JUDGMENT

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

(Delivered in Court and taken down in shorthand).

1. In this case the applicants seek to recover possession of certain premises under section 5(1)(a) of the Landlord & Tenant Proclamation No.15. The Respondents resist and resisted that application on the ground that they became tenants of the Appellants by reason of their being permitted to live in the premises by one Chan Po who, according to their Answer, claimed to be the caretaker of those premises. They supported their case with a statement as to the terms upon which Chan Po allowed them so to remain. The sole issue in this case is therefore whether or not the Respondents are persons who can bona fide claim possession under the Proclamation.

2. The evidence in this case was very short. A representative of the Appellants stated before the Tribunal that he did not know Chan Po at all. That evidence having been adduced before the Tribunal, and there being no reason to disbelieve it, the onus shifted to the Respondents to prove that in fact Chan Po was the agent of the Appellants and that therefore they were bona fide claimants to possession through the letting of those premises to them by Chan Po on the terms which they allege.

3. The Tribunal having heard the evidence dismissed the application. I can only conclude that it did so in this case because they felt that the word "may" in sub-section 1 of Article 5 vested them with the discretion to make or not to make an order for possession as they might think fit.

4. In a sense I welcome this decision of the Tribunal, for this reason: it gives me the opportunity to say something with regard to the criticisms of these Tribunals which I have heard in the last two or three weeks. It has been suggested that these Tribunals have not acted fairly because amongst their members are a number of...

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