Chong Kan Hoh v. Lai Chun Ha

Case No.HCMP 3530/1999

Court

High Court CFI

Date30 Jun 1999

Judge—

Case Document

100%

HCMP003530/1999

HCMP 3530/1999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS

____________________

IN THE MATTER of Order 113 of the Rules of High Court

and

IN THE MATTER of All That 1/6 part or share of And in All That piece or parcel of ground registered in the North New Territories Land Registry as Section C of Lot No. 3833 in D.D.91 known as 2nd Floor, No. 18 San Cheung Street, Sheung Shui, New Territories, Hong Kong.

BETWEEN
	CHONG KAN HOH (莊勤好)	Plaintiff

	AND

	LAI CHUN HA (黎俊霞) and all occupiers of 2nd Floor, No. 18 San Cheung Street, Sheung Shui, New Territories, Hong Kong	Defendant

____________________

Coram: The Hon. Madam Justice Yuen in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 30 June 1999

Date of Delivery of Judgment: 30 June 1999

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

1. This is an application by way of Originating Summons under Order 113 of the Rules of the High Court for an order for the possession of premises known as 2nd Floor, No. 18 San Cheung Street, Sheung Shui, New Territories, Hong Kong.

2. The originating summons is supported by an affirmation of the Plaintiff who is the registered owner of the property. She deposes to the fact that the property had been leased to one Mr. Hui Chi Wai and she has exhibited the tenancy agreement which provides at Clause 6 that Mr. Hui should not sublet or transfer the tenancy to others.

3. According to the affirmation of the Plaintiff, on 23rd of March 1999 Mr. Hui surrendered his lease by delivering the keys of the property to the Plaintiff. When the Plaintiff entered into the property, however, she found some occupants, including the named Defendant and her husband.

4. As far as the other occupants are concerned, apparently the Plaintiff has managed to secure their departure.

5. The present named Defendant claims to be a sub-tenant but apparently no evidence has been produced. But be that as it may, Cl. 6 of the tenancy agreement prohibits sub-letting or transfer of the tenancy, and even if there had been any sub-letting, that had been done without the consent of the Plaintiff as she has deposed that the Defendant had taken occupation without her knowledge or consent.

6. I have read the affirmation of service of Yu Wai Ho filed on 26th June 1999. He has deposed to service in compliance with the particular requirements for service laid down in Order 113, and service was effected on 17th June 1999. The requisite period of notice has elapsed and it would appear from the matters before me that the Plaintiff is entitled to a final order under Order 113 Rule 6 with costs.

	(MARIA YUEN)
	Judge of the Court of First Instance of the High Court

Representation:

Ms. LAM Chi-ching Linda of Leung Kin & Co. for Plaintiff

Defendant in person being absent