Wong Pit Hing v. Shum Tong
Read the full judgment text of CACV 14/1947 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 13 November 1947.
1. If the learned Judge in the Court below had any doubts about the meaning of my brother Williams' order of the 31st October, I think it was unfortunate that he did not refer to that Judge to clarify it. For my own part, however, I do not see that there is any ambiguity about it. The Judge made an order for possession but he wished to secure some accomodation for the 4 subtenants so the order was that if the parties should come to an amicable arrangement, nothing further would have happened. If
|
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG APPELLANT JUISDICTION APPEAL No. 14 of 1947 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Sir Henry Blackall and Mr. Justice E.H. Williams Date of Judgment: 13 November 1947 ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. If the learned Judge in the Court below had any doubts about the meaning of my brother Williams' order of the 31st October, I think it was unfortunate that he did not refer to that Judge to clarify it. For my own part, however, I do not see that there is any ambiguity about it. The Judge made an order for possession but he wished to secure some accomodation for the 4 subtenants so the order was that if the parties should come to an amicable arrangement, nothing further would have happened. If they would not, then he must decide what part would be given to these 4 subtenants. No arrangement was made and in his order of 9th December, he specified the part that would be left to the principal tenant and the subtenants. He had no information at that time that there had been a change in the subtenancies. If the principal tenant's contention is correct, then this could have happened:-There might have been 6 subtenants in October when the learned Judge decided what accomodation they should get but if in December, there was only one subtenant, the same accomodation would still be given to them. I cannot for the moment think that that was the leanred Judge's intention. I agree with the interpretation of the law submitted by Mr. Potter that the Judgment relates to the circumstances existing at the time. The principal tenant is one of those people for whom no sympathy can be felt. The object of the Rent Restriction Ordinance is to protect the actual payers of rent. It is not intended for the benefit of principal tenants who extract enormous rents from their subtenants while getting the benefit of the law for themselves. In my view, the answer to the questions propounded for our opinion are these: 2. The answer to the first question is that the word "subtenant" in the order of my brother 'Williams' should be construed as meaning those subtenants who were subtenants on the 31st October. The answer to the second question is that the judgment was a final one except as regards the portion to be given up to the appellant. The answer to the third is that these people who were not subtenants on the 31st October do not became direct tenants of the applicant. In my opinion, the principal tenant has committed a breach of section 20 by parting with the possession of the premises without the consent of the landlord and I consider that the judgment of the Tribunel should be restored. 13.11.47 |