CHEUNG LOK PUN BENEDICT v. HAIDER ALI

HCMP 2834/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 2834OF 2016

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM LDPD NO 1553 of 2016)

________________________

________________________

_______________

JUDGMENT

_______________

Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 25 August 2016, Mr Lawrence Pang, a Member of the Lands Tribunal, ordered the Respondent (tenant) to deliver vacant possession of the premises known as Room A, 4/F Mo Wah Mansion, No 1184 Canton Road, Kowloon to the Applicant (landlord). He made the order on the ground that the Respondent failed to pay the full rent of $4,000 when it fell due since 1 April 2016 and made no payment at all since 1 June 2016. He also ordered the Respondent to pay the arrears of rent and mesne profit at the rate of $4,000 per month until the delivery of vacant possession.

2.  The Respondent sought leave to appeal.  That application was refused by the Member on 6 October 2016.

3.  By a summons of 19 October 2016, the Respondent renewed the application for leave to appeal in this court.  The ground of appeal specified in the summons was as follows:

“ If owner want to take back home, must be find ISS. If he no can find, ISS, so give me back my money $18200.”

4.  He also supported his application by an affirmation of 19 October 2016.  He said he was a torture claimant and could not work in Hong Kong.  He said possession of the suit premises was given to him by International Social Service [“ISS”] and the Applicant should pursue the claim for rent against ISS.  He said he could not afford to pay rent.  He said he was not given a copy of the tenancy agreement.  

5.  Section 11(2) of the Lands Tribunal Ordinance sets out the permissible scope of an appeal from the decision or judgment of the Lands Tribunal.  In short, there can only be appeals on point of law. 

6.  Further, Section 11AA of the Lands Tribunal Ordinance provides that leave to appeal is required and it should only be granted if the court is satisfied that the appeal has a reasonable prospect of success or that there is some other reason in the interest of justice that the appeal should be heard.

7.  It seems that the Respondent disputed his liability for rent on the basis that ISS was the tenant instead of him. However, the original tenancy agreement of 30 March 2015 (for the period from 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016) was signed by the Respondent.  Though the Applicant’s agent also signed a Landlord Notification Letter addressed to ISS to facilitate part payment of the rent by ISS, it did not mean ISS became a tenant in place of the Respondent.    

8.  The Member considered the Respondent’s status as tenant in his written Reasons for Judgment of 5 September 2016.  He concluded that the Respondent was the tenant instead of ISS.

9.  We do not find any error of law in such finding and there cannot be any appeal against factual finding in an appeal from the Tribunal. 

10.  The Respondent did not explain the basis on which he claimed the sum of $18,200 and there is no evidence to support the same.  Under the tenancy agreement, the rental deposit was $6,000 and it was repayable to ISS on the termination of the tenancy.

11.  We cannot find any properly framed questions of law arising from the intended appeal. 

12.  For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal. 

13.  We are of the view that the application is totally without merit and we make an order pursuant to Order 59 Rule 2A(8) of the Rules of the High Court that no party may request our determination to be reconsidered at an oral hearing inter partes.