Yeung Pui Yee Sandy v. Go, Aurora B.

LDPD1054/2000

IN THE LANDS TRIBUNAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

Application No.: LDPD No. 1054 of 2000

_____________________________

REASONS FOR DECISION

_____________________________

1. The applicant is the landlord and the 1st respondent the tenant of the subject premises known as 1st Floor Rear Portion and Flat Roof, Wing Hing House, 480 Queen's Road West, Shek Tong Tsui, Hong Kong ("the subject premises"). The subject premises was currently let at a rent of $7,500 per month commencing from 1st October 1997. On 13th May 2000, the applicant filed an application by Form 22 against the respondent on the ground that the latter owed the applicant two months' rent as she failed to pay rent since 1st April 2000. The applicant sought orders for possession of the subject premises and payment of rents in arrears. The applicant stated in the application that the applicant had in the past failed to pay rent on time on a number of occasions and the applicant paid the rents in arrears only after the applicant had obtained judgments in favour of the applicant in the Lands Tribunal.

2. On the date of hearing held on 26th June 2000, both parties were present. The respondent was granted leave to file a notice of opposition out of time. In the notice of opposition, she denied that she had owed the applicant two months' rents in arrears. At the end, it was found, on the evidence, that the respondent owed the applicant arrears of rent in the sum of $5,000 for the period up to 31st May 2000 and arrears of rent from 1st day of June 2000 at the rate of $7,500 per month.

3. In the circumstances, the following orders were made on 26th June 2000:

1. Vacant possession to Applicant conditional upon the Respondent falling within 4 weeks in terms of s.21F of the High Court Ordinance, Cap.4 to pay the sums provided for in paragraphs 2 and 3 herein;

2. The Respondent shall pay the Applicant (i) arrears of rent/mesne profits for the period up to 31st day of May 2000 in the sum of $5,000 and (ii) arrears of rent/mesne profits from 1st day of June 2000 at the rate of $7,500 per month until delivery up of vacant possession;

3. The Respondent shall pay the Applicant's costs which is fixed at $1,000;

4. Payment out to the Applicant upon payment in by the Respondent.

4. The applicant subsequently applied for a writ of possession. This was granted on 14th August 2000.

5. On 24th July, 2000 the respondent filed an interlocutory application to the Lands Tribunal requesting for extension of time to pay the balance of rent to the respondent.

6. This application was fixed for hearing on 9th August 2000 during which both the applicant and the respondent were present. The respondent applied for further time for payment of arrears of rent, in addition to the normal 4-weeks relief period granted in the orders made on 26th June 2000. The respondent admitted that following the hearing on 26th June 2000, she had only paid, on 30th June 2000, the rent of $7,500 for the period from 1st June to 30th June. The respondent admitted that she failed to comply with the orders dated 26th June 2000 by not paying within 28 days of the date of the orders the previous outstanding arrears of $5,000 for the period up to 31st May 2000 and the costs of $1,000. The respondent explained that she did not have the money to pay that arrears as she herself was not paid the salary for the month of July by his employer in the Philippines. The respondent claimed that she was planning to go to the Philippines to investigate the matter. The respondent further stated that while she herself, her husband, a brother and a daughter were the only persons living in the subject premises, she was the only one who had regular earnings from employment. She was earning a monthly salary of $10,000 and the cost of the dwelling including the rent of $7,500 amounted to about $8,000 per month. She also stated that her employer's company had business in both the Philippines and Hong Kong.

7. The applicant objected strongly to the granting of further relief for payment of rents in arrears. She complained that her monthly mortgage amounted to about $13,000 and that the respondent already owed her 3 months' rents in arrears. She accused that the respondent was a habitual defaulter and never kept her promises. The applicant submitted that the respondent's plight has nothing to do with her. She further asked that the Tribunal should take into account the respondent's previous performance and the applicant's circumstances before making a decision.

8. There was no dispute on the facts relating to the payments made by the respondent to the applicant. The respondent has not provided sufficient reasons for the Tribunal to exercise its discretionary power to extend the relief period for the payment of rents in arrears. Furthermore, from the evidence given by the respondent, it is obviously not within the means of the respondent to continue renting the subject premises bearing in mind that the monthly salary of the respondent was only $10,000 and that the respondent and her family occupied the whole of the subject premises. In the circumstances, the respondent's application was dismissed.

Order of the respondent's application dated 24th July 2000-

The respondent's application be dismissed.