|
LDNT000195A/1999
香港特別行政區土地審裁處
申請編號LDNT 1999年第195宗
|
申請人
|
Liang Hau Liang |
|
|
|
|
|
訴 |
|
|
|
|
| 答辯人 |
Jik Sing Company Limited |
|
主審法官：周兆熊法官
宣判日期：2000年8月25日
______________
判 決 書
______________
1. 1999年11月9日，本席授予申請人香港銅鑼灣開平道5號5樓（＂處所＂）二年新的租約，而每月的租金為22,900元；與訟雙方未能就新租賃的其他條款達成協議，故此根據《業主與租客（綜合）條例》第119J條的規定，本席需要對新租賃的其他條款作出裁定。與訟雙方同意該等條款應以前租賃(由1997年11月1日起至1999年10月31日止)的條款（＂前租約＂）作為基礎，而審裁處祇需就雙方爭議之處作出裁定；經裁定的條款與經雙方議定的條款便成為新租賃的其他條款。
適用的法例
《業主與租客（綜合）條例》第119J條有以下的規定：
"The terms of a tenancy granted by order of the Tribunal under this Part (other than terms as to the duration thereof and as to the rent payable thereunder) shall be such as may be agreed between the landlord and the tenant or as, in default of such agreement, may be determined by the Tribunal; and in determining those terms the Tribunal shall have regard to the terms of the current tenancy and to all relevant circumstances."
第119J條與英國的Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 的第35條的主要內容是一樣的。
第35條的內容如下∶
"The terms of a tenancy granted by order of the court under this Part of this Act (other than terms as to the duration thereof and as to the rent payable thereunder) shall be such as may be agreed between the landlord and the tenant or as, in default of such agreement, may be determined by the court; and in determining those terms the court shall have regard to the terms of the current tenancy and to all relevant circumstances."
2. 在O'May and others v City of London Real Property Co. Ltd. ([1982] 1All ER) 一案，英國的上議院（House of Lords）就第35條內的“Having regard to"一詞作出闡釋。Lord Hailsham 在判詞說：
“A certain amount of discussion took place in argument as to the meaning of 'having regard to' in s35. Despite the fact that the phrase has been used by the draftsman of s34 in an almost mandatory sense, I do not in any way suggest that the court is intended or should in any way attempt to bind the parties to the terms of the current tenancy in any permanent form. But I do believe that the court must begin by considering the terms of the current tenancy, that the burden of persuading the court to impose a change in those terms against the will of either part(y) must rest on the part(y) proposing the change and that the change proposed must, in the circumstances of the case, be fair and reasonable....."
（劃線為原文所無）
3. 對前租約（証物A）的條款，與訟雙方共有5點爭議之處。
爭議之一
4. 前租約的第2（c）(iii)條有下列的規定：
"2. The Tenant to the intent that the obligations may continue throughout the term of tenancy hereby created agrees with the landlord as follows:-
(a) ...............
(b) ...............
(c) (i).............
(ii)............
(iii) To replace all broken or damaged windows and window panes whether or not the same be broken or damaged by the negligence of the Tenant."
（劃線為原文所無）
5. 申請人要求將“whether or not"數字刪去，而代之以“where"一字。刪改的結果就是他祇會因本身的疏忽而引致窗門和窗門玻璃破壞的情況下才須將它們更換，而在刪改前，無論窗門是否因為他的疏忽而毀壞，他都有責任去把它們更換。他要求作出上述刪改，因為他認為答辯人的行為並不合理。他引述在2000年3月9日他所作誓章的第6至第11段以支持他的說法；在該數段中他說答辯人提議新租賃的租金為28,475元,但申請人須支付它的測量師的一半費用，即2000元。假如申請人認為他不能接受答辯人的建議，他祇要拒絕該建議就可以了。答辯人的建議不為他所認同並不等同於答辯人的行為是不合理。申請人在誓章又祇廖廖數語提及前租客在小額錢債審裁處提訴答辯人有關答辯人保留該前租客按金一事。這是答辯人與第三者之間的訴訟。本席不知道該案全部的事實，故此本席不能裁定答辯人在該案的行為是否不合理。
6. 申請人對第2（C）(iii)條的刪改要求構成業主與租客之間一個責任的轉變。處所是在租客控制之下，故此他要負起條款上所規定的責任，並非是不公平和不合理的；如果說這條款是不公平和不合理的條款，經修訂的條款對答辯人來說是更不公平和更不合理，因為處所並非是在它的控制之下。根據O'May and others v City of London Real Property Co. Ltd.一案的裁決，除非提出修改租約條款的建議是公平和合理的，否則前租約的有關 條款不應被更改。申請人沒有足夠的事實或法理根據以更改該條款，故此本席拒絕他的申請。
爭議之二
前租約的第2條（q）款的內容是如下列：
(q) Not to erect any aerial antenna on the exterior or roof of the said premises without first obtaining the written consent of the Landlord. Should such consent having been given, all erection works must be carried out under the supervision of a representative of the Landlord."
7. 申請人要求在"Landlord"之後加入"which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld" 的子句；他提出這申請的理由是因為大厦已是40年的舊樓，而處所的附近是高樓大厦；該些高樓大厦對處所的電視機接收電訊的能力形成障礙。
8. 答辯人的律師說天台與外牆的業權屬於業主，並不屬於申請人租賃的範圍。在大厦的天台或外牆所安裝的天線，是會影響它的外觀，對它的價值影響大。大厦竪有公共天線，可以接收有線電視的電視節目，而且申請人在以往兩年內從來沒有就電視接收的事宜作出任何投訴。申請人祇要在室內安裝接收電訊力強的天線，便可改善電視接收的情況。
9. 申請人並沒有提供任何証據，以証明處所的電視機接收電訊的能力差。即使這是事實，申請人亦無權在不屬於他租賃的地方竪立天線，故此本席拒絕申請人的修訂要求。
爭議之三
10. 租約第8（C）條有以下的規定:
"8 Notwithstanding anything herein contained or implied to the contrary, the Landlord reserves the right at any times and from time to time and shall not be liable in damages to the tenant or be made a party any other proceedings or for costs or expenses of whatsoever nature incurred by the tenant as a result of the exercise of such right by the Landlord:-
(a)............
(b)............
(c) At its expenses to change the arrangement and/or location of the common passages, entrances and doors to the said building, passageways, doorways, corridors, landings, staircases, lobbies, lifts, escalators, toilets or other common or public parts of the said building or any services or apparatus or installations serving the said building without the same constituting an actual or constructive eviction of the Tenant and without incurring any liability to the Tenant therefor."
（劃線為原文所無）
11. 申請人要求在 (C) 款之後加上"Provided always that the tenant may elect to determine their Agreement whereupon the deposit shall be refunded to the tenant" 的子句。
12. 申請人表示答辯人如根據上述條款作出的在公共地方的改動，可能對他造成不便，但（C）款清楚述明該些改動不會造成實質上或變相地將租賃終止的情況，亦不會為租客招致任何責任。該些改動亦有可能對租客無任何影響，或甚至是有利的。如果條款容許租客可以因此而終止租約，這並非是公平和合理的條款。申請人以往曾接納這條款，但就這申請他沒有舉出事實以証明這條款所作出的修改是公平和合理的，故此本席拒絕他的申請。
爭議之四
前租約附表VII 第I（a）條有以下的規定：
"1. It is hereby declared that there is included in this letting the use of the furniture and effects (collectively "the furniture") in the said premises an inventory of which is set out in Part VIII of the Schedule hereto and that the Tenant hereby undertakes with the Landlord:-
(a) to keep the furniture in as good condition as they are now in (allowing for the reasonable use and wear there of) and not to remove any part thereof from the said premises and if at the determination of the tenancy any of the furniture shall have been broken damaged lost or rendered useless to replace with articles of the same sort and equal value those broken lost or rendered useless and repair such furniture as shall be damaged or pay to the Landlord the amount or value of the loss or damage;"
（劃線為原文所無）
對此條款，申請人要求在"to replace"之前加入"due to the negligence of the Tenant"數字。
13. 假若本席批准此修改的申請，則申請人祇須在因他的疏忽而引致傢俬損壞的情況下，才負上更換、修補或賠償該些傢俬的責任。申請人對處所有控制權，故此由他負上條款所規定的責任並非是不公平和不合理的；無論如何，在前租賃生效的時候他曾接納此條款；就此修改的申請，他並無任何事實或法理上的根據使本席可以裁定該修訂是公平和合理的，故此本席拒絕他的申請。
爭議之五
14. 答辯人要求在租約增加一條新的條款，即 "To use the said premises only for private residential purposes by the Tenant herein, namely, Mr. Liang Hau Liang, his immediate family members and domestic servants. For the avoidance of doubt, the said premises shall not be used for or occupied by Mr. Liang Lu Kar, Lucas or his immediate family members."
15. Lucas Liang 是代表申請人的律師。答辯人未能証明Lucas Liang犯了任何過錯，而需要針對他。文律師說答辯人想知道Lucas Liang 在處所的身份，以便使它＂心安＂，但申請人沒有法律上的責任以令它安心；此針對性的條文並非是“公平和合理＂的條文，故此本席拒絕它的申請。
16. 本席拒絕批准雙方而就租約爭議之處所提出的申請。本席頒令該些爭議的條款的原文、或該些條款經議定的修訂本，成為新租賃部份的條款。
17. 本席頒令新租賃的其他條款是以雙方議定的條款與及經本席裁定的條款作為該些條款。
18. 本席頒令雙方各自負責本身的訟費。
申請人：由M/S Oliver C.M. Chan & Co. 律師事務所代表
答辯人：由M/S Joseph S.C. Chan & Co. 律師事務所代表
|