Yeung Mee Yu v Cheung Siu Chuen

Court:District Court (Hong Kong)
Judgement Number:DCDT35/1946
Judgment Date:25 Feb 1947
DCDT000035/1946 YEUNG MEE YU v. CHEUNG SIU CHUEN

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

SUMMARY JURISDICTION

DISTRAINT No. 35 of 1946.

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

BETWEEN
YEUNG MEE YU Plaintiff

AND

CHEUNG SIU CHUEN Defendant

Coram: E.H. Williams, Puisne Judge

Date of Judgment: 25 February 1947

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. The written agreement regarding the SIU TAK eating house, 106 Thomson Rd., Ground Floor, between plaintiff (grantor) and defendant (grantee), as successor to two other persons, expired on 4th April, 1946. The evidence shows that plaintiff had been owner of the SIU TAK eating house for some years before the war and had held a licence for it from the Urban Council. She had also been principal tenant of the floor. On 28th February, 1944, she had entered into an agreement for the hire of the business with defendant's predecessor: perhaps at that time the eating house business was not a flourishing one.

2. The following points are noteworthy in the agreement:-

1. The plaintiff did not give up her whole interest in the floor, reserving for herself the rear cockloft.

2. The grantee agreed to pay a named monthly sum for the hire of the furniture and fittings and, in addition, he was to pay the shop 'rent'. That amount was not stated in the agreement but it is clear from the evidence that shop 'rent' meant the rent previously payable by the plaintiff to her landlord for the floor i.e., the shop and 2 cocklofts. In effect as regards house rent, plaintiff was to live rent free.

3. The agreement was for a definite period.

3. For the duration of the written agreement and thereafter, it is in dispute whether plaintiff paid the rent direct to the landlord, receiving it in turn from the grantee or whether the grantee paid direct to the landlord. The rent receipts are in the name 'SIU TAK' but that gives no help nor does the fact that defendant had in his possession most of the rent receipts issued by the landlord. The probabilities are that plaintiff herself paid as it is unlikely she would prejudice her position as principal tenant by allowing the grantee continuously to pay, thereby tending to mislead the landlord as to who was the real tenant.

4. On the expiry of the written agreement in April 1946, a verbal agreement was entered into by plaintiff and defendant for the continuation of the hire of the business. For the 6...

To continue reading

Request your trial