PAO LUNG-YUN LOUIS v. FUNG CHUN-FUNG

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No. 111

(Civil)

______________

______________

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

Nazareth V-P (giving the judgment of the Court) :

1. The appellant, Mr Pao Lung-yun, was the sub- tenant, and still is, as far as we know, the sub-tenant of a flat known as F2 on the 6th floor of Mirador Mansions in Nathan Road. He occupies it at a monthly rental of $6,600.

2. On 24th May 1996 he and the principal tenant (the respondent), who was the other party, appeared before the Lands Tribunal on the application of the principal tenant for repossession of the premises. The ground was non-payment of the rent since February that year. Mr Pao admitted that the rent had not been paid but he claimed that the principal tenant refused to accept payment. The presiding officer decided it was appropriate to make an order for the principal tenant to have possession of the premises - a room - with provision for relief. The effect of that was that if Mr Pao paid up all the arrears of rent within four weeks, the order of forfeiture would not have effect.

3. One would have thought that was a very sensible arrangement because Mr Pao had said he was always willing to pay the rent and had offered it. But despite the order, Mr Pao has not paid the rent. The Lands Tribunal did not order a stay of execution as asked by Mr Pao; nor did we when Mr Pao came before this Court on appeal against the decision of the Lands Tribunal on 4th September 1996. His reasons, the same as those he advanced before the Lands Tribunal, were these. He said his power supply was cut off. His premises were improperly entered into by the principal tenant who disturbed his occupation and scattered his possessions. That signs that he put outside the premises in which he conducted a dancing school were disfigured and had obscenities scrawled over them. He could not conduct his business because he was cold. And because of this, and without lights he had to tramp the streets and could not go back to his room, and so on and so forth. He repeated these complaints before us again and again.

4. In fact, he went back to the Lands Tribunal and asked for a review. He relied on a clerical error that recorded the rent that he had paid in advance at a rate of $660 per month instead of $6,600. That error did not prejudice him nor did it invalidate the proceeding. So the presiding officer declined to change his decision. He went back twice after that again to the Lands Tribunal, complaining about his electricity supply and the other complaints we have mentioned. The Tribunal found that there was nothing in them and that he was engaging in nuisance tactics to delay enforcement of the Tribunal's order.

5. We have listened patiently to his complaints. We have studied the numerous documents, papers, submissions, diagrams and photographs that have been put before the Court. They all come to naught for this reason: the decision of the Lands Tribunal is by s.11 of the Lands Tribunal Ordinance, final subject to only one exception, and that is contained in subsection (2) of s.11, which provides that:

" ...any party to proceedings before the Tribunal may appeal ... against a determination or order of the Tribunal on the ground that such determination or order is erroneous in point of law".

We have looked in vain for a point of law in all the papers that Mr Pao put before us and in his lengthy oral submissions. We have not been able to find any point of law nor has he been able to point one out to us despite having been invited to on more than one occasion. In the circumstances there is only one thing we can do, and that is to dismiss the appeal.

6. Not only is there no point of law but the Lands Tribunal seems to have been quite right in its decision it gave. Since he was willing to pay the outstanding rent and his principal tenant wanted possession of the premises, the Tribunal, it seems to us, made a sensible order in requiring the arrears to be paid and not having him put out of possession if he paid them within the four weeks he was allowed. He declined to do so even much later when invited to by this Court on the first hearing in September. He must now abide the consequences. If he has complaints of the nature he has mentioned, it is open to him to pursue them by an independent action, if he is so advised. For our part, the course we must take is clear and we dismiss the appeal.