Granda Properties Ltd. 訴 Pekhai Trading Co. Ltd.

LDPD 17 OF 2002

香港特別行政區

土地審裁處

申請編號2002年LDPD第17號

______________

判 案 書

______________

1． 申請人是Apartment A, 12th Floor, Block 3 (Bauhinia Court) and Car Park Nos U198 & U198A, World-Wide Gardens, No. 13 Lung Pak Street, Shatin, New Territories（“處所”）的業主；答辯人是處所的租 客。處所的租賃期是由2000年11月5日至2002年11月4日，每月租金為25,000元。2002年1月2日，申請人向土地審裁處（“審裁處”）提出申請，要求收回處所的管有權以及收回由2001年9月5日起計至2002年1月4日為止的欠租100,000元。經減去50,000元的按金後，款額是50,000元。

2． 2002年1月4日，答辯人將處所交回給申請人。

3． 答辯人承認要向申請人支付上述的50,000元，但它提出債務抵銷的抗辯。它指稱它已付出的重新裝修費24,097元以及酒店支出費17,638.00元須從該50,000元中扣減出來，因而它祇須支付8,265元的欠租。它的抗辯理由可見於反對通知書的下列各段 ：

"(a) Soon after the signing of the Tenancy Agreement ............... the applicant orally gave consent to the Respondent to decorate the said premises and pursuant to the said consent, the Respondent had incurred about HK$80,000.00 to improve the condition of the said premises. ...............

(b) After the Respondent had incurred the said sum of HK$80,000.00 for the decoration work done on the said premises, water started to seep from the ceiling of the said premises and damaged the decoration of the said premises as well as some of the furniture therein.

(c) Water seepage stopped by the end of March, 2001.

6. In or about early July, 2001, one Mrs. Chung of the Applicant orally invited one Mrs. Lau of the Respondent to re-decorate the said premises and agreed to reimburse the Respondent for the expenses to be incurred to make good the damage of the said premises caused by the said water seepage. The said Mrs. Chung further agreed to reimburse the Respondent for the hotel expenses to be incurred by the Respondent during the re-decoration period while the Respondent and his family had to move out of the said premises.

7. Pursuant to the said agreement, the Respondent in or about late July, 2001 appointed contractor to re-decorate the said premises and incurred a total sum of HK$24,097.00 for the re-decoration work and a total sum of HK$17,638.00 for hotel expenses.

8. In breach of the said agreement, the applicant failed to pay the respondent the said sum of HK$24,097.00 and the said sum of HK$17,638.00. The Respondent therefore refused to pay the rent of the said premises since 5th September, 2001.

9. Then on or about 4th December, 2001, the said Mrs. Chung taken into account of the two months deposit for the sum of HK$50,000.00 under the Tenancy agreement had orally agreed with the said Mrs. Lau to settle the matter by way of set-off on 4th January, 2002. In breach of the said oral agreement to settle the matter by way of set-off on 4th January, 2002, the Applicant instructed its solicitors and sent the Respondent a demand letter dated 17th December, 2001 and commenced the present legal proceedings against the Respondent shortly before the agreed set-off date of 4th January, 2002."

4. 答辯人的証供

在2002年3月18日的証人陳述書（“陳述書”），代表答辯人的阮小珠（即劉太）說 ：

"8. After the water seepage came to an end by the end of March, 2001, I requested the Applicant to make good the damage caused by the water seepage and the said Mrs. Chung of the Applicant agreed. In reply to my request, Mrs. Chung proposed to me that the Respondent could arrange contractor to carry out the decoration works and the Applicant would reimburse the expenses actually incurred by the Respondent. I then consulted certain contractors and was informed that the decoration works could only be carried out 3 months later when the ceiling became dry.

9. In or about early July, 2001, the said Mrs. Chung of the Applicant agreed to the quotation of the contractor I supplied to her and promised to reimburse the decoration expenses of the Applicant as well as my family's hotel expenses during the decoration period ("the Oral Agreement").

10. Pursuant to the Oral Agreement, the Respondent since or about mid July, 2001 appointed a contractor and incurred a total sum of HK$24,097.00 to decorate the Premises."

4.1 在2001年8月中，裝修完成，她把裝修的“單”傳真給鍾太。其後鍾太同意給回酒店費用的3份之二。12月3日雙方同意於12月4日對數。

4.2 她是以口頭向鍾太報價的。鍾太同意該報價。該報價為 15,500元。在8月中她把所有單據傳真給鍾太。

5． 申請人的証供

代表申請人的鍾太（石家珍女士）說於2000年12月終，劉太知會她處所的一個睡房的天花及衣櫃有滲水。她發現衣櫃真的有滲水的現象。

5.1 約於2001年7月，劉太告訴她13A室的業主會進行13A室防止漏水的工作，而她意欲在13A室的工程完成後聘請承建商對處所受影響的地方進行修補工程。劉太同時表示她的家人要在修補工程進行 期間暫時移居他處。劉太問她可否支付該工程以及替代的處所的費 用。她問劉太費用會是多少。劉太表示工程費預算為大約10,000元，而酒店房租約為一天600元。該工程會在5日之內完成。

5.2 在與丈夫商討後，她告訴劉太她會暫時性給予她有關將衣櫃修補及酒店的合理費用，該費用分別是不超過10,000元及3,000元，但 是劉太必須在施工前向她提供估價單，以便她作出查驗與及批准，而 劉太必須在處所居住直至2年租約完畢為止。

5.3 2001年8月或9月，她與劉太談及有關維修工作的事宜。劉太說維修費可能較她預算的高，並問她可否支付餘額。鍾太只說她需與丈夫商討其事。其後她告訴劉太她會維持原有的協議。

5.4 約於2001年10月,劉太向她傳真一些收條，並要求她支 付17,447元作為維修費以及17,638元的酒店費。她拒絕支付該些費 用，因為劉太並無先前向她提供報價單，而上述的款額遠超她同意支付之數。她向劉太說她祇會支付最多13,000元，但劉太拒絕接受她的提 議。

6． 本席首先要考慮答辯人是否享有債務抵銷的權利 (the right to set off) ，即是從租金中扣除維修費及酒店費。劉太祇是提及在2001年 12月4日她與鍾太“對數”，大家“交換支票”。如果是“大家換支票”，則情況一定是劉太將欠租以支票支付，而鍾太以開出支票的方式將維修費及酒店費交予劉太。這亦即是說前者是與後者需分開處理。直 至12月4日為止，欠租是75,000元，而維修費及酒店費是遠低於此數目，故此如果有關的協議是將後者從前者（欠租）扣除出來，則劉太祇需在將後者的款額從欠租的款額扣除出來後開出支票將欠租餘額交給鍾太就可以了，故此鍾太無須開支票給劉太，況且鍾太聲明有關款項不可在租金中扣除，因此有關12月4日的協議完全是與債務抵銷之事無關，因此申請人無權從欠租中扣除任何其他費用。本席將答辯人的答辯撤銷。

7. 本席亦需要裁決與訟雙方之間是否有協議的存在。

7.1 劉太在反對通知書的第5(a)段指申請人向她蓄意或疏忽地隱瞞處所的天花自1995年受滲水的影響。劉太並無舉出任何証舉以証明此點。

7.2 鍾太的証人陳述書第9段指鍾太同意劉太提供承建商的估價 單，但有關的“發票”（証物R1的第23頁）祇顯示銀碼15,500元，但抵銷的款額則為24,097元。二者並不脗合。24,097元中包括 6,650元（2,020元 + 600元 + 150元 + 3,880元）與冷氣機有關的費 用。這6,650元的費用根本上與滲水之事無關。如果劉太真的有把維修工程的估價單提供給鍾太，本席難以相信鍾太會同意這些與滲水工程 無關的費用。劉太說鍾太要求她找個師傅報價給她，劉太指鍾太同意15,500元的報價。但現在24,097元是遠超此款額，而其中包括有關冷氣機的費用。

7.3 本席裁定劉太並無告訴本庭事實的全部真相。

7.4 本席裁定鍾太的証供為真實的証供。她的証供有說服力，特別是有關維修費及酒店費的上限的証供。那是合情合理的証供。鍾太將這些款額定出上限是很自然和合理的事，因為該款額可大可小。為保障個人利益，她必定很自然查詢費用的數目，但陳述書第8段完全沒有述及費用的數目，這令人難以置信。既然劉太並無將估價單預先交予鍾太查閱及批准，她當然並無支付維修費及酒店費的責任。

8． 本席頒佈以下的命令 ：

1． 本席將答辯人的抗辯撤銷；

2． 本席頒令申請人的申請得直。答辯人須在14天內向申請人支付50,000元；

3． 答辯人須向申請人支付上述50,000元的利息。利息由2002年1月2日起計，直至債項清償為止。利率則按終審法院首席法官不時藉命令所決定者計算。

9． 訟費

本席頒佈後述的臨時訟費的命令：答辯人須支付申請人本案的訟費。如與訟雙方未能議定訟費的款額，則該款額由法庭審定。如與訟任何一方不在14天內向本席提出申請，則此項命令作實。