Chan Kan v. Tao Yun Ying
|
CACV000159/1985
BETWEEN
___________ Coram: Sir Alan Huggins, V.-P., Kempster, J.A. & O'Connor, J. Date of Hearing: 14 January 1986 Date of Judgment: 14 January 1986 ___________ JUDGMENT ___________ Sir Alan Huggins, V.-P.: 1. This is an appeal against an order granting possession of a flat on the ground that the landlord requires it for personal occupation. The issue which has been raised on the appeal is as to the right of the Landlord to remain in Hong Kong. If she is not entitled to remain in Hong Kong (as the Tenant asserts) that would clearly be a material factor to be considered. 2. The facts are that the landlord lived in Hong Kong for many years and then in December 1970 went with her family to live in the United States of America. Her husband now is retiring owing to illness and they wish to come back to Hong Kong. The Landlord came in advance and instituted these proceedings. The indications are - although there was no direct evidence on the point - that she is of Chinese race and is therefore a "Chinese resident" within the meaning of s.2 of the Immigration Ordinance. The Presiding Officer was satisfied that she did require, and reasonably require, the premises for her own occupation. Her evidence was that she now lives permanently in Hong Kong and that she is a "Hong Kong belonger". Whether or not she used that expression in the technical sense laid down by the Immigration Ordinance, no questions were directed to her to show that she was not a "Hong Kong belonger", although it appears from the Application itself that she is now a United States citizen. Whether she has dual nationality was not investigated. However, whether or not she is technically a 'Hong Kong belonger" she appears to have the right to land in Hong Kong without permission. That right is conferred by s.8 (1) (c) on "Chinese residents". She having landed without the requirement of permission, there is no provision in the Ordinance which disentitles her to remain in Hong Kong. That being so, it seems to me that on the evidence before him the Presiding Officer was entitled to find that the Applicant was permanently resident and would continue to be resident here. Therefore the objection which is raised by this appeal has no weight and, that being the only objection, I would dismiss this appeal. Kempster, J.A.: 3. I agree and have nothing to add. O'Connor, J.: 4. I also agree. 14th January 1986 Representation: Appellant in person. K.B. Ng for Respondent. |