Wong Yee-chor and Another v. Lam Ngan-on

DCCJ002812/1982

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF HONG KONG

HOLDEN AT VICTORIA

CIVIL JURISDICTION

ACTION NO.2812 OF 1982

____________________

____________________

Coram: K. Bokhary Deputy Judge in Court

Date: 4 August 1982

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. The Plaintiffs are a married couple in their mid-thirties. They have 3 children : a girl aged almost 12, a boy aged 9 and another boy aged 6. The husband is a clerk with a firm of stockbrokers earning about $3,300 per month including over-time. The wife is a housewife. The children are all in primary school.

2. The family live in one of the 3 bedrooms of an 800 square foot flat known as No. 4, 12th floor, Olympia Theatre Building, No. 249 King's Road in North Point. This room has an area of about 170 square feet for which they pay $1,200 per month rent. It is partitioned into 2 cubicles : one of about 100 square feet and the other of about 70 square feet. Husband and wife and the youngest child sleep in the larger cubicle : the husband and wife on one bed end the little boy on another smaller one. The two older children sleep on a buns in the smaller cubicle. There are a very few other items of furniture in these cubicles : a wardrobe, dressingtable and a chair in the large one; and a desk with a book-case on top, 2 wardrobes and 2 chairs in the smaller one. The family also have the simple pleasure of a television set of their own, which is kept in the larger cubicle.

3. The other 2 bedrooms in this flat are occupied by 2 other families. One consists of a young couple and their 2 year old son. The other consists of a lady and her son who is in his early twenties.

4. All 3 families share the living room, a kitchen and a bathroom with toilet and shower facilities but no hot running-water.

5. Everything which I have described is illustrated in 12 photographs which have been produced by consent.

6. Living conditions in this flat are certainly very cramped. Apart from lack of space, privacy and quiet, occupants tend to get in each other's way over the use of the bathroom and the kitchen. The Plaintiffs' children bicker with the other couple's son; and this sometimes causes friction between the grown-ups. Sources of friction are plentiful enough; and there has been a good deal of friction. No breach of the peace has broken out, but there have been unpleasantness and periods of frosty silence.

7. The Plaintiffs' children, particularly the elder two have neither the place nor, more significantly, the quiet conclusive to proper study. I can well understand their parents' anxiety over this.

8. Where the plaintiffs now live was none too desirable when  they first moved in during, the latter part of 1976. It is even less desirable to them now. For one thing, their children are growing older. For another, other occupants of the building have taker. to playing mahjong in the corridors. shouting and wearing as they do and scolding the Plaintiffs' children when, I suppose, the children disturb (if that is the right word) these activities.

9. The Plaintiffs are the registered owners of Flat No. 2101 on the 21st floor of Tak Lee Building, No. 993 King's Road in North Point. I will refer to this flat as 'the suit premises'.

10. By a tenancy agreement dated April 5, 1977, the Plaintiffs let the suit premises to the Defendant for a term of 3 years commencing on the date of such agreement at a rent of $800 per month inclusive of rates. This term expired by effluxion of time on April 4, 1980. Upon such expiry the Defendant became a monthly tenant in re respect of the sit premises at a rent of $968 per month inclusive of rates payable in advance on the 5th day of each and every month. Although it was not admitted in the Defence,. it was admitted at the trial that this contractual tenancy has been duly determined by a notice to quit.

11. Part II of the Landlord and Tenant (Consolidation) Ordinance, Cap. 7 applies to the suit premises. The Plaintiffs seek an order for possession on the ground that they reasonably require the suit premises for occupation as a residence for themselves. The Defendant denies this. It was pleaded in the Amended Defence that in all the circumstances of the case it would manifestly not be just and equitable to make an order for possession.

12. The Defendant neither gave nor called evidence; and in his closing speech, Mr. Poon, who appeared for the Defendants, very properly abandoned reliance on the just and equitable provision.

13. Mr. Poon relied on his cross-examination of the Plaintiffs and his speech. Despite his able efforts, I find that the plaintiffs gave honest and accurate evidence. The facts recited in this judgment are based on such evidence.

14. The suit premises have an area of about 400 square feet. It consists of a bathroom, kitchen, sitting room and 2 bedrooms.  It is much more suitable for the Plaintiffs and their children (who will reside with them if an order for possession is made) than their present accommodation.

15. In the absence of evidence suggesting that there are people playing mahjong in the corridors of the building in which the suit premises are situated, I find that nothing of the sort is going on there. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that I do not find that anything of the sort is going on there. But I should say that my decision would be no different even if the corridors in the building in which the suit premises are situated were used in the same way as the corridors of the building in which the Plaintiffs now live were used.

16. The Plaintiffs, I find, have no more than $1,000 or so, between them by way of savings.

17. I am satisfied that they have a genuine and present need of the suit premises. I find that they reasonably require them as they say.

18. I make an order for possession and mesne profits as prayed.