LO CHI HO AND ANOTHER 訴 WONG WING YEE WENDY

LDBM 321 OF 2002

香港特別行政區

土地審裁處

建築物管理申請編號2002年第321號

______________

判 案 書

______________

1． 申請人是西貢丈量約份第212號第82地段餘段1字樓的業主；答辯人是該餘段2字樓的業主。在該餘段的建築物是一幢三層樓高的建築物。申請人的申請是有關建築物天台的小屋、一個在外牆建造的窗口、一度鐵閘以及梯間的一度扶手。

2． 天台的小屋

2.1 在建築物的天台有一建築物（証物A1第9頁、第10頁紅色箭咀所指的建築物）。申請人專家証人報告（証物A1）第2頁第4.1段對這小屋有以下的描述:-

"4.1 Rooftop Structure

4.1.1 By inspection from ground floor level, it was found that a structure was erected at the south-east, side on the top roof of the subject house as shown on the photographs at Appendix IV. The roof-top structure appeared to be constructed mainly with grass. It was about 6 feet high as estimated from visual inspection.

4.1.2 By on site measurement on G/F and 1/F at the north-west side of the house, the height as measured from the ground to the ceiling of the 1/F was 4.89 m (16ft.). As the site is not entirely level, the south east side of the house was erected on a small platform. The height as measured at the south-east side of the house, from the ground (including the platform) to the ceiling of 1/F was 5.26 m (17 ft. 3 in.). Moreover the three storeys of the house appeared to be and should be of the same height and the height from the ground to the ceiling of 2/F is about 7.335 m (24 ft.) on its north-west side and is about 7.7 m (25 ft. 3 in.) on its south-east side. Therefore the building height of the subject house including the roof-top structure is about 9.15 m (30 ft.) on its north-west side and about 9.53 m (31 ft. 3 in.) on its south-east side.

4.1.3 As such, I concluded that the building height (including the roof-top structure) exceeded 27 feet (8.23 metres)."

本席接納上述的報告為真實的報告。

2.2 該建築物的公契的第6條規定“Each of the parties hereto and their respective successors in title shall for the period during which he remains an owner of any undivided share of and in the said Land and the said Building observe and perform the terms and conditions contained in the Crown Lease or the entitlement thereto under which the said Land are held from the Crown
..................”。

2.3 該建築物乃是根據西貢地政署發出的一封日期為1990年1月2日的Letter of Approval所建的。該Letter of Approval列出發展丈量約份第212號82段的18項條件。其中的第(ii)及(v)有以下的內容:-

"(ii) All provisions contained in the Buildings Ordinance Cap. 121 (application to the New Territories) Ordinance shall be followed.

.............................

(v) If you wish to rebuild the structure(s) to more than 8.23 metres (27 ft.) in height and 65.03 square metres (700 sq. ft.) in area, all provisions in the Buildings Ordinance Cap. 123 shall apply."

2.4 上述的Letter of Approval是構成政府租約的一部份。根據西貢民地政署在1991年6月14日發出的Certificate of Exemption，建築物的高度不可超過8.23米。該文件亦是構成政府租約的一部份。現時建築物的高度，因該小屋的關係，已超越8.23米所規定的高度，因此答辯人沒有遵守公契第6條的規定。

2.5 答辯人說該建築物是前業主所建造的，只是一個用作放置雜物及曬晾的有蓋空間，蓋頂面積更少於天台總面積的二分之一。在購入單位時已經由按揭銀行指定的測量行測量合格，方接受她的樓宇按揭申請，其後她亦曾徵詢測量師曾家求先生的意見，確認不會影響樓宇結構；而且，根據樓契顯示，三樓連天台乃屬她的私有物業，所以對申請人盧志豪不會造成任何影響，而且前業主及她本人却從來沒有收到政府發出要求清拆的通知書。這些都不是有效的抗辯理由。

3． 牆邊的窗戶

3.1 答辯人在大廈的2字樓外牆建造一個窗口（証物A1第11頁紅色箭咀所指之處）。對這窗口，申請人的專家証人報告有以下的描述:-

"It was noticed that a window was constructed on the external wall of the 2nd floor of the subject house facing south-western aspect.............. it is confirmed that the window is erected on side other than north-west side of the house."

本席接納這部份的報告為真實的報告。

3.2 對窗口的建造，上述Letter of Approval的第(XV)條規定“Windows and/or other openings shall be erected on the north-west side of the proposed building.”。答辯人建造的窗口不是位於大廈西北的方向，因此他是違反了公契第6條的規定。

4． 在樓梯的鐵閘

4.1 為了人身安全，答辯人在2002年8月3日在1字樓與2字樓之間的樓梯間安裝了一度鐵閘（証物A1第13頁、証物R3第(1)幅照片）。依據《建築物管理條例》（“條例”）第2條的釋義“公用部分”指“(a) 建築物的全部，但不包括在土地註冊處註冊的文書所指明或指定專供某一業主使用、佔用或享用的部分；及(b) 附表1指明的部分，但上述文書如此指明或指定的部分除外”。附表1第8段列明“樓梯”為公用部份。

4.2 公契並無將樓梯指明作為某一業主使用的部分。因此根據條例第2條的釋義，樓梯是一個公用部份。公契第2條規定“Each of the parties hereto and his licensees shall in common with his co-owners of the said Land and their licensees have access to and be entitled to use the staircase, landings and the common passages of and in the said Building .........”。這亦清楚顯示樓梯是一個公用的部份。

4.3 條例第34I (1)(a)條規定任何人不可將建築物公用部分的任何部分改作自用，除非該項改變乃由業主委員會（如有的話）藉決議批准者。

4.4 答辯人在樓梯間所安裝的鐵閘佔用樓梯空間的一部份，而當鐵閘被關閉後，由該鐵閘至2字樓門口的樓梯部份便成為答辯人所佔用的空間，而其他業主便不能行使上述公契第2條所賦與使用該部份樓梯的權利。本案沒有証據証明答辯人是得到業主委員會的批准而進行安裝鐵閘的，因此她的作為是違反了第34I (1)(a)條的規定。答辯人的証人Tsang Ka Kau在他的証人陳述書第25段所提述的都不是有效的理由。他指稱 "at least two-third in majority of the owners of the said Building approved that the second gate be retained at its present location”。Tsang先生在証人陳述書的第21段說‘Clause 4(b)(ix) of the Deed of Mutual Covenant further provides that "Any resolution on any matter concerning the said Land and the said Building as a whole passed at a duly convened meeting by a majority vote of the owners present or by proxy and voting shall be binding on all the owners entitled to attend and vote at such meeting." ’。公契第4(b)(ix)條不適用於本案，因為與訟雙方都沒有提出有關會議和議決的証據。該條款是與本案無關。

5． 樓梯扶手

為了安裝鐵閘，答辯人將部份扶手的一部份除去。扶手是樓梯的一部份，所以是公用部份。答辯人的作為是違反了條例第34I (1)(a)條的規定。

6. 反申索

6.1 申請人承認他曾在樓梯的牆壁上寫字（証物R3第7、第8頁）Tsang Ka Kau在証人陳述第26、27段有以下的陳述:-

'26. Site inspection also revealed that some words in Chinese character have been written on the Wall of the Staircase of the said Building which is in breach of the owner's duty of care under Clause 4(d)(vi) of the Deed of Mutual Covenant which states that "To keep the common parts of the said Land and the said Building in a clean and sanitary state and condition".

27. Under Clause 4(d)(vii) of the Deed of Mutual Covenant the owner is put the onerous responsibility "To paint or whitewash or treat with cement wash or other materials as appropriate such of the common parts of the said land and the said Building as should be painted, whitewashed or so treated at such intervals as the same may reasonably be required to be done.'

6.2 第4條是有關組成業主委員會以便管理大廈的條文。第4(d)條有以下的開端:-

"The chairman of the owners' committee and in the event of the other owners having been appointed by the owners' committee, shall have full and unrestricted authority to do all such acts and things as may be necessary or requisite for the management of the said Land and the said Building or anything reasonably incidental thereto and without in any way limiting the generality of the foregoing the chairman of the owners' committee or the other owners (if any) shall have the following powers and duties: -"

上文所指的權力及責任共有21項（由 (i) 至 (xxi)），而“the other owners”必定是指條文開始部份的“the other owners appointed by the owners' committee”。

6.3 Tsang Ka Kau所指的第4(d)(vi)及(vii)條是21項權力及責任的其中兩項，但該些權力及責任是由“the chairman of the owners' committee”或“the other owners appointed by the owners' committee”所行使，而不是由個別的業主所行使的。該法律依據不適用於申請人的行為，因此反申索不能成立，本席將其撤銷。

7． 本席裁定申請人的申請得直。

8． 本席頒令:-

1． 答辯人須於3個月內將天台的小屋移去，並恢復天台的原狀。

2． 答辯人須於3個月內將二字樓外牆的窗口除去，並恢復該外牆的原狀。

3． 答辯人須將一字樓及二字樓梯間的鐵閘除去。

4． 答辯人須恢復樓梯扶手的原狀。

5． 就第5項申請，本席不作出命令。

9． 訟費

本席頒下臨時訟費的命令：答辯人須支付予申請人本案的訟費。如雙方未能議定訟費的款額。該款額由法庭按區域法院訟費水平為基準而予以審定。若於14天內，任何一方不向本席提出申請，此命令作實。