Sogelease Hong Kong Ltd. v. Vaucluse Ltd.

IN THE LANDS TRIBUNAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

Application No. LDNT 184 of 2000

_______________

_____________

Judgment

_____________

1. The Applicant is the tenant of the premises ("the subject premises") known as House No. 23 of Bella Vista (together with the Garden Yard), No. 15 Silver Terrace Road, Silverstrand, Sai Kung, New Territories, whilst the Respondent is the landlord of the subject premises.

2. In this application the Applicant applied to the Lands Tribunal for the granting of a new tenancy for 2 years, commencing from 1st June 2000. The Respondent did not oppose the granting of the new tenancy. The sole issue to be resolved by the Lands Tribunal in this case is the amount of monthly rent of the subject premises to be paid by the Applicant.

3. The Applicant did not call any witness to testify. It only produced as exhibit a schedule of reported rents compiled by the Rating and Valuation Department (Exhibit A1), in which the particulars of 6 premises had been set out, for the purpose of their being used as comparables.

4. The Respondent called Mr. Young Chi Kong, a surveyor, to be its witness, to testify on the prevailing market rent of the subject premises. In the course of his evidence Mr. Young produced a valuation report (Exhibit R1) compiled by him concerning the valuation made by him on 31.5.2000 of the prevailing market rent of the subject premises. This valuation report referred to the same 6 comparable premises as contained in Exhibit A1. Mr. Young placed more weight on Comparable Nos. 3 and 4 because of the following reasons :-

"(i) These 2 selection comparables are located within the same locality enjoying similar environmental and local characteristics as well as commends same seaview.

(ii) Only these two comparables have saleable area over 200 square metres which are relatively close to the premises.

(iii) Comparable 3 and 4 are of semi-detached house type respectively which have similar design and layout as the premises.

(iv) Comparable No. 3 has only minor adjustment of 11% on the monthly rental."

5. On pp.26, 27, 28 and 29 of the valuation report he worked out the adjusted unit rates of Comparable Nos. 3 and 4 to be $392.6 and $332.10 per sq.m. respectively. He adopted $350 per sq.m. as the prevailing market rent of the subject premises as at 31.5.2000. His valuation is as follows :-

House area	$350 x 234.7 sq.m	. = $82,145
Extended area	$350 x 1/4 x 35.3 sq. m.	= $ 3,088 75
		$85,233 75

6. He was of the opinion that the prevailing market rent of the premises should be $85,000 per month.

7. Having considered his evidence and his report, I am satisfied that the reasons given by him for giving more weight to Comparable Nos. 3 and 4 are convincing.

8. I am also satisfied as that the adjusted rates of Comparable Nos. 3 and 4 are reasonable. I do not see any double in this aspect of his evidence. The Applicant did not seriously challenge his evidence. I therefore accept all his evidence.

9. I make the following orders :-

(i) The Applicant is granted a new term of tenancy for 2 years, commencing on 1st June 2000, at a monthly rent of $85,000, exclusive of rates and management fee;

(ii) The rental deposit held by the Respondent be increased with reference to the new rent at the rate of $85,000 per month;

(iii) Subject to (i) and (ii), the terms and conditions of the currently expired tenancy be adopted;

(iv) There be no order as to costs.