BabelCite

Au Yeung Hung Pan Benes v. Leung Nai Chung

Read the full judgment text of CACV 55/1993 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 2 July 1993.

1. This is an appeal by the respondent to proceedings in the Lands Tribunal. The appeal is against the judgment of the presiding officer made on 19 March 1993. At the hearing on 19 March the applicant landlord appeared but the appellant failed to appear. The judge heard the evidence of the landlord, found the matters alleged in the Notice of Application proved and gave judgement for possession of the premises and arrears of rent since 11 September 1992. It is against that decision that Mr. Leung

Case No.CACV 55/1993
Court
Court of Appeal
Date02 Jul 1993
Judge—
Case Document
100%Judiciary

CACV000055/1993

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1993, No. 55
(Civil)

_______________

BETWEEN
AU YEUNG HUNG PAN BENES Applicant
(Respondent)
AND
LEUNG NAI CHUNG Respondent
(Appellant)

_______________

Coram: Hon. Nazareth and Litton, JJ.A. and Liu, J.

Date of hearing: 2 July 1993

Date of judgment: 2 July 1993

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Litton, J.A.:

1. This is an appeal by the respondent to proceedings in the Lands Tribunal. The appeal is against the judgment of the presiding officer made on 19 March 1993. At the hearing on 19 March the applicant landlord appeared but the appellant failed to appear. The judge heard the evidence of the landlord, found the matters alleged in the Notice of Application proved and gave judgement for possession of the premises and arrears of rent since 11 September 1992. It is against that decision that Mr. Leung now appeals.

2. The only ground of appeal we need to deal with is the averment that the landlord was not the owner of the premises claimed. That is not a matter relevant to the issues between the parties. The fact is that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The landlord's claim was based upon that relationship. He succeeded in those proceedings. Whether the landlord was the registered owner is not relevant to this appellant's liability. For this reason the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

(G.P. Nazareth) (Henry Litton) (B. Liu)
Justice of Appeal Justice of Appeal Judge of the High Court

Representation:

Appellant, Leung Nai-chung, in person

K.H. Hui (M/s T.C. Lau & Co.) for Respondent