CHIN CHI WEN v. YEUNG CHI SING

CHIN CHI WEN v. YEUNG CHI SING

Tribunal found on balance of probabilities the HK$5,000 sent by the respondent was payment of annual rent but that the respondent used the Property for residential purposes in breach of Clause 6(i); the claim that the respondent cut water or failed to assist under Clause 3 failed because the original pump was broken and Clause 3 is void for uncertainty; accordingly the tenancy was forfeited and the applicant entitled to recovery of possession; costs awarded at 60% to applicant.

Citation
[2021] HKLdT 64
Parties
Landlord: Ms Chin; Tenant: Mr Yeung
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
31 August 2021
Case Number
LDPE1502/2020
Procedural Posture
Landlord and Tenant Recovery of Possession and Rent / Judgment (31 August 2021)
Outcome
Applicant's application for recovery of possession granted; tenancy forfeited.
Legal Topics
Forfeiture, Possession, Rent Arrears, Residential Use, Breach of Tenancy Agreement, Evidence Admissibility, Costs
Source Language
EN
Landlord and Tenant Property Law Contract Conveyancing Forfeiture Possession Rent Arrears Residential Use +3 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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms Chin

Landlord

Mr Yeung

Tenant

Procedural Posture

Landlord and Tenant Recovery of Possession and Rent / Judgment (31 August 2021)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent paid annual rent for 1 September 2020 to 31 August 2021
  2. 2 Whether the respondent used the Property for residential purposes in breach of Clause 6(i) of the Tenancy Agreement
  3. 3 Whether the respondent failed to assist the applicant to use and maintain the water supply and storage system and/or denied access in breach of Clause 3 and Clause 6(c) of the Tenancy Agreement

Ratio Decidendi

Tribunal found on balance of probabilities the HK$5,000 sent by the respondent was payment of annual rent but that the respondent used the Property for residential purposes in breach of Clause 6(i); the claim that the respondent cut water or failed to assist under Clause 3 failed because the original pump was broken and Clause 3 is void for uncertainty; accordingly the tenancy was forfeited and the applicant entitled to recovery of possession; costs awarded at 60% to applicant.

Court Disposition

Applicant's application for recovery of possession granted; tenancy forfeited.

Orders

  • The respondent do deliver vacant possession of the Property to the applicant.
  • Costs order nisi that the respondent do pay the applicant 60% of the applicant's costs in these proceedings, including all costs reserved, with certificate for counsel and on District Court scale, to be taxed if not agreed; the costs order nisi shall be made absolute upon expiry of 14 days from the date of the...