丘國璋 v. 葉江及另一人

丘國璋 v. 葉江及另一人

The Tribunal found the primary user of the Subject Land had become predominantly domestic by the early 1990s so s.116(2)(ba) did not exclude the tenancy from Part IV; there was insufficient evidence of a life tenancy or any tenancy requiring a deed, the rent being paid yearly supported a yearly tenancy, the CR101 served was valid and addressed to both co-tenants, and therefore the tenancy was determined and possession awarded to the applicant with mesne profits and costs ordered.

Citation
丘國璋 v. 葉江及另一人
Parties
Applicant: Applicant; First Respondent (deceased): Yip Kong; Second Respondent: Au Hop
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 April 2004
Case Number
LDPD3658/2003
Procedural Posture
Landlord and Tenant (possession) / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for Applicant: tenancy determined and possession awarded to Applicant
Legal Topics
Tenancy Classification Under S.116 Landlord and Tenant (consolidation) Ordinance, Validity of CR101 Notice Under S.117, Life Tenancy Vs Yearly Tenancy, Modification of Tenancy Permit (m.o.t.), Possession and Mesne Profits, Costs and Taxation
Source Language
EN
Landlord and Tenant Law Property Law Lands Tribunal Procedure Tenancy Classification Under S.116 Landlord and Tenant (consolidation) Ordinance Validity of CR101 Notice Under S.117 Life Tenancy Vs Yearly Tenancy Modification of Tenancy Permit (m.o.t.) Possession and Mesne Profits +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Applicant

Applicant

Yip Kong

First Respondent (deceased)

Au Hop

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Landlord and Tenant (possession) / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tenancy falls within Part IV (s.116(2)) of the Landlord and Tenant (Consolidation) Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the respondents hold a life tenancy or a yearly tenancy
  3. 3 Validity of the CR101 notice served

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found the primary user of the Subject Land had become predominantly domestic by the early 1990s so s.116(2)(ba) did not exclude the tenancy from Part IV; there was insufficient evidence of a life tenancy or any tenancy requiring a deed, the rent being paid yearly supported a yearly tenancy, the CR101 served was valid and addressed to both co-tenants, and therefore the tenancy was determined and possession awarded to the applicant with mesne profits and costs ordered.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Applicant: tenancy determined and possession awarded to Applicant

Orders

  • Tenancy between Applicant and Respondents terminates on 31 October 2003
  • Respondents shall quit and deliver up vacant possession of the Subject Land and the structures thereon within six months from date of judgment