Mak Yok Jan v. Lam Wai
Read the full judgment text of DCCJ 371/1980 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment.
1. In this matter, the plaintiff landlord seeks possession of the suit premises on the grounds that the defendant's 3 year domestic tenancy expired by effluxion of time on 19th January, 1980.
|
DCCJ000371/1980 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF HONG KONG HOLDEN AT VICTORIA CIVIL JURISDICTION ACTION NO. 371 OF 1980 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Judge Bewley in Court. Date of Judgment: 7th March, 1980. ----------------- Ruling ----------------- 1. In this matter, the plaintiff landlord seeks possession of the suit premises on the grounds that the defendant's 3 year domestic tenancy expired by effluxion of time on 19th January, 1980. 2. The defendant, who was then acting in person, filed a defence that the tenancy agreement gave him an option to renew, which he had purported to exercise on 25th January, 1980. 3. On 13th February, the plaintiff sucessfully applied to have this defence struck out under Order 18, rule 19. The defendant, who is now represented by Mr. C.P. Lai, applies for a review of this order under section 53 of the District Court Ordinance, Cap. 336. 4. Feeling that the matter is of general interest at the present time, I have adjourned the matter into open court. 5. Mr. Lai does not pursue the question of an option to renew Clearly, under the terms of the agreement, it is not open to him to do so. He submits, however, that his client is protected by Part II of the Landlord & Tenant Ordinance, by virtue of the recent amendment to that Ordinance, which was passed on 13th February, the very day that the plaintiff's summons was heard. 6. It is common ground that, at the time of the creation of the fixed term of 3 years on 20th January, 1977. Part II of the Ordinance did not apply and the tenancy created was thus unprotected. This was by virtue of section 50(6)(j), which provided that Part II should not apply to a tenancy or subtenancy created after the 31st December, 1975 for a fixed term of 3 years or more the agreement for which contains no provision for earlier determination by the landlord other than for breach of any of the provisions of the agreement. 7. Section 3(b) of the amending ordinance provides that section 50(6)(j) of the Landlord & Tenant Ordinance shall be deleted. Section 1(2) provides that section 3(b) shall be deemed to have come into operation on 18th December, 1979. The effect of this, submits Mr. Lai, is to bring the tenancy under the protective umbrella of Part II for the final month of its existence. 8. Not so. As pointed out by Mr. Chan, for the plaintiff, the material date is the date of creation of the tenancy. 9. Section 23(c) of the Interpretation Ordinance, Cap. 1, provides,
The landlord acquired in 1977 a right of reversion, which cannot be taken away by this amendment. 10. The true implication of the deletion of section 50(6)(j) is that every such tenancy created after 18th December, 1979 is protected, but the amendment does not affect tenancies created before that date. 11. My decision of 13th February is therefore confirmed.
Representation: Mr. Warren Chan (K.K. & Winston Chu) for plaintiff. Mr. C.P. Lai of C.P. Lai & Co. for defendant. |