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

Yeung Mee Yu v Cheung Siu Chuen

Judgment Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date25 February 1947
Year1947
Judgement NumberDCDT35/1946
Subject MatterDistraint Case
CourtDistrict Court (Hong Kong)
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 months prior to that date, defendant had paid $120 per lunar month for the hire and $80 per calendar month for the rent. Plaintiff claims that the agreement was for the continuation of the hire at a total figure of $240 per lunar month (i.e. including rent) for a period of 3 months. This period was given in order to allow defendant to find other premises. On the other hard, defendant claims that the $120 figure was increased to $240 and that in addition, he was to continue paying the rent. He also asserts that the period of hiring was not fixed. On that point, I accept the evidence of the plaintiff that it was for a definite period of 3 months. Relations between the parties at this time were friendly.

5. At the end of June, however, defendant had probably realised that the Landlord & Tenant Proclamation might protect him and he did not give up the premises. From that onward, relations between the parties became unfriendly. Solicitors' letters passed between them in July. Defendant was...

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