Huang Pui Ying v. Anani Kokuvi Akpenamawn Raymond and Another

CACV 165/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 165 OF 2015

(ON APPEAL FROM LDPD NO. 421 of 2015)

_______________________

_______________________

______________

JUDGMENT

______________

Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.This is a landlord and tenant dispute. The Applicant landlord (Madam Huang Pui Ying) claimed possession against the Respondent tenant (Mr Ugbe Ngozi Kenneth) on the ground of non-payment of rent in the Lands Tribunal. Originally, there were two occupants using the leased premises at the roof of No 44B Kwun Chung Street, Jordan. Since about October 2014, one of the occupants disappeared and the tenant remained as the sole occupant. As the remaining tenant, he is liable for the full rent of the premises which is $3,000 per month. According to its terms, the tenancy shall run to 30 August 2016.

2.Due to the arrears of rent from October 2014 (which represents the half share in the rent which had formerly been the responsibility of the other occupant), the Lands Tribunal granted an order for possession on 30 March 2015 with a provision for relief against forfeiture under Section 21F of the High Court Ordinance.  The deadline for payment under the relief was 8 April 2015.

3.The Respondent did not fully pay up the arrears by 8 April 2015.  He is a torture claimant and through the government-funded social welfare agency (ISS) paid his original half share in rent, he relied on assistance from a charitable organisation to pay the other half (which used to be paid by ISS on account of the other occupant who was also a torture claimant).  Perhaps due to misunderstanding, he only managed to pay the arrears up to 31 March 2015. 

4.He thought he had fully paid up the arrears and he unsuccessfully sought leave to appeal and stay of execution at the Lands Tribunal.  He applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal in HCMP 1323 of 2015 on 1 June 2015.  This court granted an interim stay of execution.

5.At the hearing on 25 June 2015, with both parties before us, the court worked out that up to July 2015, the Respondent still owed the Applicant the sum of $6,191.  After hearing the parties, an order was made to grant the Applicant one last chance to pay the sum of $6,191 by 13 July 2015. 

6.Since then, the Applicant complied with the order and paid the sum of $6,191 on 29 June 2015.  Thus, pursuant to the order made on 25 June 2015, leave to appeal was granted. 

7.In order to have the appeal efficiently disposed of, the order of 25 June 2015 also provided for the disposal of the appeal on paper.  Parties have agreed to treat their submissions at the hearing of 25 June 2015 as submissions in the appeal.

8.In essence, the appeal is an interlocutory appeal to extend the time for payment of the arrears.  This is permissible under s 21F(4).  Alternatively, equity can grant similar relief, see Mui Lai Sze v Hau Chi Fai [2005] 2 HKC 367.

9.In the circumstances, it is appropriate for such relief to be granted, the time for payment of the arrears as ordered by the Tribunal is extended to 13 July 2015.  Since the amount has now been paid, the effect is that pursuant to s 21F(5) the Respondent shall hold the premises according to the terms of the tenancy agreement.

10.We make no order as to costs in respect of the appeal

The applicant appeared in person

The 2^nd respondent appeared in person