Man Fai Investment Co Ltd v. Chan Fai-chak Ant Another

Case No.HCSA 11/1977

Court

High Court CFI

Date—

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCSA000011/1977

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

	1977 No. 11
	(Small Claims)

BETWEEN:
	Man Fai Investment Co. Ltd.	Appellant
	and
	CHAN Fai-chak
	CHUNG So-chun (F)	Respondents

Coram: Briggs, C.J., Huggins and Pickering, JJ.A.

Date of Judgment: 11th November, 1977.

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. This is an appeal from the decision of the Small Claims Tribunal dismissing the claim of the appellant to recover the sum of $1,345.50 being arrears of rates which the appellant had paid on behalf of the respondent, his tenant.

2. The appellant let certain premises to the first respondent. The tenancy was an oral tenancy and there was no agreement as to who was liable for the payment of the rates. Later, a written tenancy agreement was signed by the second respondent, the wife of the first respondent. In that agreement it is provided that the rates are the responsibility of the tenant.

3. Before the Small Claims Tribunal the first respondent sought to rely upon the oral tenancy agreement and the Tribunal held that the claim of the appellant must be dismissed because the appellant had not proved that the respondent was liable to pay the rates.

4. The provisions of section 21 of the Rating Ordinance (Cap. 116) were not drawn to the attention of the Tribunal. This section reads as follows:-

"	21. (1) The owner and occupier of a tenement shall both be liable to the Collector of Rates for payment of the rates assessed thereon, but the same shall be deemed to be an occupier's rate and, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, shall be paid by the occupier.
	(2) Where no such agreement exists and the rates assessed, or any part thereof, are paid by the owner of the tenement, the amount paid may be recovered by him from the occupier in an action for money paid to his use, or, if the occupier is still in occupation of the tenement, by distress in the same manner as for rent."

5. It follows that as the Tribunal found that there had been no agreement as to the payment of the rates between the parties that section applies and the appellant was entitled to judgment on his claim.

6. This appeal must be allowed and judgment entered for the appellant for the sum claimed.

7. In the particular circumstances of this appeal we make a special order that the respondents pay to the appellant $500 as costs.

	(Geoffrey Briggs)
	President.

Representation:

Bokhary (F. Zimmern & Co.) for appellant.

Respondents in person.