Moonview Limited v. Lau Siu Keung, Simon

CACV000229/1996

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No. 229
(Civil)

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

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

Coram: Hon. Litton, V.P., Godfrey & Ching, JJ.A. in Court

Date of hearing: 13 February 1997

Date of judgment: 13 February 1997

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Ching, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The matter before us purports to be an appeal from the Lands Tribunal. Both parties appear in person. The appellant, upon whom the duty lay, has not put before us the documents which he should have but we have secured from the Lands Tribunal the notes of the Presiding Officer of a hearing on 4th September, 1996, further notes of a hearing on 14th October, 1996, an order of the Presiding Officer dated 5th November, 1996, and the Reasons for Decision of the Presiding Officer dated 25th November, 1996. We have before us also the Notice of Appeal of the appellant. It is from these documents that we must gather the facts.

2. The facts appear to be as follows. The appellant entered into a written rental agreement with the respondent for premises on 29th April, 1996. It was an agreement for the appellant to rent domestic premises for a period of two years at $8,000 per month. The rental was not paid as from 1st June, 1996, and there is an allegation that the appellant was breeding dogs on the premises as a commercial enterprise. The appellant admits in his Notice of Appeal that he and another person had more than 10 dogs on the premises which he describes in his Notice of Appeal as being pets notwithstanding that they appear to have been kept in cages. He also admits that he has not paid the rent but he says that at one stage he offered to pay $10,000 which the respondent refused to accept. He acknowledges that that sum was insufficient to cover the arrears but he says that he had paid a deposit of two months' rental which made it sufficient. He also says that there was leakage into the premises during times of rain and that the toilet was not flushing.

3. The matter came up for hearing by the Tribunal on 4th September, 1996. The appellant did not appear. The Presiding Officer made an order on that date that he should deliver up vacant possession within four weeks unless he should pay the arrears of rent as from 1st June, 1996, and $1,000 in costs within that time. The appellant did not pay anything. The appellant then applied for a review of that order which came on for hearing on 14th October, 1996. The appellant appeared at that hearing but did not dispute that he was owing rent. He put forward the points already mentioned. The Presiding Officer pointed out to him, correctly, that the Tribunal was not the appropriate forum for the enforcement of any covenant to repair and that the appellant could not regard the deposit as payment of rent. The Presiding Officer refused to allow the appellant further time to remove and dismissed the application for review. The next day, the appellant filed a further application for review. When this came on for hearing the appellant repeated the same points and the application was dismissed. The Notice of Appeal raises these points again.

4. By section 11(2) of the Lands Tribunal Ordinance, Cap.17, an appeal from that Tribunal to this Court lies only upon a point of law. No point of law of any sort has been identified upon which this Court could begin to exercise its jurisdiction. This appeal is dismissed.

Representation:

Both Appellant and Respondent in person