CHEUNG CHUNG SHEK AND ANOTHER v. PANG NGA TIK

LDPD 2949/2012

IN THE LANDS TRIBUNAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

APPLICATION NO. LDPD 2949 OF 2012

____________

BETWEEN

____________

_______________________

REASONS FOR DECISION

_______________________

Background

1.  The Applicants are the owners of the suit premises, "Flat F, 19th Floor, Tung Hoi Mansion, Kwun Hoi Terrace, Taikoo Shing, Hong Kong".  The former owner of the suit premises as landlord let by tenancy agreement the suit premises to the Respondent as tenant.  On 6 December 2012, the Applicants applied at the Lands Tribunal for recovery of possession of the suit premises based on a break clause of the tenancy agreement. 

2.  The trial of the application was held before me on 6 February 2013.  At the end of the hearing, I gave judgment to the Applicants and ordered that the Respondent do deliver vacant possession of the suit premises to the Applicants and that the Respondent do pay the Applicants arrears of rent/mesne profits.

3.  On 27 February 2013, the Respondent filed an Application for Review requiring the Lands Tribunal to review my decision made on 6 February 2013.

Application for Review

4.  The Respondent submits that he has found lots of evidence which I have overlooked when making the decision.  Further, the Tribunal should look seriously regarding the submission of false document, the copy of the notice to quit as evidence.  His reasons are:

Notice to Quit

5.  The Respondent submits that the notice to quit served by the Applicants on the Respondent was not properly addressed.   The Respondent also submits that the Applicants have provided a false copy to the Tribunal as evidence.

6.  The Respondent submits that in my decision, I said, “he admitted that the address showing Flat T instead of Flat F was written on the Certificate of Posting for Unregistered Postal Packet and it was tampered from T to F”. 

7.  In the Respondent’s opinion, I have admitted and realized the Postal Receipt was written as T.  As a result, based on the evidence of one of the witnesses, Ms Luk, confirming that the address on the Postal Receipt originated from the notice to quit, the Respondent submits that the address showing Flat T was actually indicated on the original of the notice to quit which could be seen through the window of the envelope.  The Respondent submits that the evidence produced by the Applicants showing the address on the notice to quit must be false.

8.  With respect, the Respondent only quotes part of my decision.  I have carefully listened to the court recordings and checked my notes when delivering judgment.  When I said, “the address showing Flat T instead of Flat F was written on the Certificate of Posting”, I was actually saying even if as Mr Pang, (the witness of the Respondent) said, someone changed the Certificate of Posting such that the address was changed from T to F, I accepted this did not affect the posting of the notice to quit which was inside a window envelop.   Even if T had been changed to F on the Certificate of Posting, this was only the record.  In my judgment, I found that the actual address inside the window envelop was Flat F, as shown in the Applicants’ evidence.    

Service by Post and Service of Notices

9.  The Respondent submits that in my decision, I said, “even (if) the address on the notice to quit was incorrectly written as Flat T, the notice to quit packet would be redirected to Flat F because Flat T was not available in Tung Hoi Mansion of Taikoo Shing.”

10.  With respect to the Respondent, this was not what I said.  I have also carefully listened to the court recordings and checked my notes when delivering judgment.  What I said was Mr Pang did not say there was Flat T on the same floor as the suit premises.  I accepted there was no Flat T and even if the address was Flat T as alleged by Mr Pang, the letter should have been returned to the Applicants’ solicitors.  But there was no such evidence and I accepted Ms Luk's evidence that she did not receive the letter being returned and that there was no such record.

HCMP 6047/1998

11.  The Respondent submits that although I have made my decision with reference to HCMP 6047/1998, the notice to quit should be in writing.

12.  With respect to the Respondent, my citation of HCMP 6047/1998 was authority for my finding that even though the Applicants’ notice to quit stated it was to be sent by registered post, when actually the Applicants’ solicitors sent the notice by ordinary mail, this did not affect the validity of the notice to quit.  The notice was in writing.

The Witness Statement of Ms Luk

13.  The Respondent opposes Ms Luk’s statement and also her standing as witness. The reasons given by the Respondent are:

(a)   Ms Luk said that there was no need for her to read any letter.  The Respondent takes issue with this.

(b)   There is conflict of interest between Ms Luk and her employer.  She was supposed to maintain sound relationship and obedience with the Management.

(c)   Her statement should be considered as a template drafted by the Applicants’ solicitors and was not her genuine memory.

14.  With respect, the Respondent’s submission is pure speculation.  He produces no evidence in support.  In my decision, I have found Ms Luk an honest witness.

Possession of the Suit Premises and Settlement of Outstanding Rental

15.  The Respondent takes issue with the procedure in returning possession of the suit premises to the Applicants and the payment of outstanding rental.

16.  In my opinion, these matters are consequent to my judgment, not reasons to review my decision.

Conclusion

17.  The Respondent’s application is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.