Siu Wai Keung v. Herminia Lao Jez
Read the full judgment text of LDNT 662/1998 on BabelCite. This LDNT judgment was delivered on 30 November 1998.
1. This is an application by the tenant Siu Wai Keung (A), for a new tenancy of the premises at Flat 11-B, Parkview Mansion, No.3, Lau Sin Street, Causeway Bay. The Respondent landlord (R) opposes the application on the grounds that the tenant has caused unnecessary annoyance, inconvenience or disturbance to the landlord. R complained that A was often in arrears of rent, and that there was a history of unfriendly relationship between the parties.
|
>LDNT000662/1998 IN THE LANDS TRIBUNAL OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION Lands Tribunal Application No. LDNT 662 of 1998 ________________
________________ Coram : Deputy Judge LEE Dates of Hearing : 30 November 1998 Date of Judgment : 30 November 1998 Date of Reasons for Decision : 24 December 1998 _____________________ REASONS FOR DECISION _____________________ 1. This is an application by the tenant Siu Wai Keung (A), for a new tenancy of the premises at Flat 11-B, Parkview Mansion, No.3, Lau Sin Street, Causeway Bay. The Respondent landlord (R) opposes the application on the grounds that the tenant has caused unnecessary annoyance, inconvenience or disturbance to the landlord. R complained that A was often in arrears of rent, and that there was a history of unfriendly relationship between the parties. 2. R sought to terminate the tenancy by a notice of termination in the specified form CR101 (Exhibit A1). This was dated 17th June 1997, and notified the tenant that the tenancy would be terminated on 31st December 1998. It is clear that the CR101 was wrongly dated. A agreed that he did receive this CR101, and responded on 13th August1998 by issuing another specified form CR102 (Exhibit A2), stating that he would not be willing to give up the possession of the suit premises. A form CR105 (Exhibit A3), dated 7th September, 1998, was issued by R, requiring the tenant to apply to the Lands Tribunal for the grant of a new tenancy. A then brought the present application. 3. During the hearing it was clear that the CR101 (Exhibit A1) was wrongly dated to be issued on 17th June 1997, and as such invalid. R accepted that, but alleged that she had shortly thereafter, on discovering the mistake, amended the date on the CR101 to read 17th June 1998, and sent it by fax to A on 18th June, 1998. R did not send it by post, and there was no evidence of any other mode of service. A denied ever receiving the second CR101 (Exhibit R3). 4. Under Section 119 (1) of the Landlord and Tenant (Consolidation) Ordinance Cap.7 the landlord may terminate a tenancy by notice given to the tenant in the specified form CR101. Cap.7 is one of the Ordinances under which matters may be submitted to the Lands Tribunal for determination. Rule 7 (1) (b) of the Lands Tribunal Rules provides that :
5. There is no provision for service by fax. 6. As the first CR101 (Exhibit A1)was not valid, and the second CR101 (Exhibit R3) had not been properly served, the A's application for a new tenancy was dismissed.
Representation: The Applicant in person. The Respondent represented by Madam LI LAO, Rosita.
|