Mamie Dunn v. New Estate Company Limited
Read the full judgment text of LDLA 104/1984 on BabelCite. This LDLA judgment.
1. The applicant tenant has applied pursuant to Section 117(1) of the Landlord and Tenant (Consolidation) Ordinance, Cap. 7 for a new tenancy of the domestic premises known as Flat A27, Po Shan Mansion, 13th Floor, 16 Po Shan Road, Hong Kong of which the respondent is the landlord.
|
LDLA000104/1984 Property Law - landlord and tenant - Part IV - application for new tenancy - landlord elected to take no part in proceedings - Sections 117(1), 119I and 119K Landlord and Tenant (Consolidation) Ordinance, Cap. 7. IN THE LANDS TRIBUNAL OF HONG KONG Application No. L.T. 104 of 1984
__________ JUDGMENT __________ TRIBUNAL: His Honour Judge Cruden, Presiding Officer and M.W. Phillips, Esq., Member. 1. The applicant tenant has applied pursuant to Section 117(1) of the Landlord and Tenant (Consolidation) Ordinance, Cap. 7 for a new tenancy of the domestic premises known as Flat A27, Po Shan Mansion, 13th Floor, 16 Po Shan Road, Hong Kong of which the respondent is the landlord. 2. The respondent did not file any notice of opposition to the application but did acknowledge in writing that it had been served with the Notice of application. In addition, the applicant swore and filed an affidavit of service. 3. In the notice of application the applicant stated that the respondent had offered her a new tenancy at $15,000 per month. The notice of application went on to record that the applicant considered that offered new rent to be excessive and reference was made to the larger and newer domestic flats at Estoril Court at present on the market at the same rent. In view of the fact that the respondent elected not to contest this application, those allegations by the applicant remain undisputed. 4. At the hearing the applicant applied for a new tenancy for 3 years from the 1st day of April 1984 at a new rent of $12,000. No evidence from a chartered surveyor or other expert witness was called by the applicant to support her allegation that a new rent of t $12,000 per month, based on prevailing market rents, was reasonable. 5. However, we may take judicial notice of new rents recently negotiated in relation to two other domestic premises at Po Shan Mansion which were revealed in Application No. L.T. 88 of 1984. In that application for a new tenancy in respect of Flat A11, Po Shan Mansion, 6th Floor, 16 Po Shan Road, the parties reached agreement during May 1984 for a new tenancy for 2 years at a new rent of $14,400 per calendar month exclusive of rates. In addition the tenant agreed to pay maintenance charges of $600 per calendar month. 6. In the latter application the Rule 18 documents, filed by the tenant included a copy of Form CR109, duly receipted by the Commissioner of Rating and Valuation, which indicated that in respect of Flat A9 Po Shan Mansions, 5th Floor, 16 Po Shan Road, the parties had agreed on the 20th day of January 1984 for a new tenancy of 2 years from the 1st day of April 1984 at a new rent of $13,291 per calendar month exclusive of rates. Management charges of $600 were in addition payable by the tenant. 7. In the light of the evidence we determine the new rent at $14,000 per calendar month exclusive of rates. We order the grant of a new tenancy by the respondent to the tenant for a duration of 3 years from the 1st day of April 1984 at that new rent of $14,000 per calendar month exclusive of rates. There will be no order as to costs. Liberty to apply is reserved in respect of any other consequential matters. DATED this 14th day of June 1984.
Representation: Applicant in person. |