Voice of America Asia News Center v. Dah Hung Enterprises Co. Ltd.
HTML content
LDNT000114/2002
LDNT 114 OF 2002
IN THE LANDS TRIBUNAL OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
NEW TENANCY APPLICATION NO. 114 OF 2002
_______________
| Between | ||
| Voice of America Asia News Center | Applicant | |
| AND | ||
| Dah Hung Enterprises Co. Ltd. | Respondent |
_______________
Coram: H. H. Judge Chow, Presiding Officer of the Lands Tribunal
Date of Judgment: 16 July 2002
________________
J U D G M E N T
_________________
1. The Applicant is the tenant of the flat located at 1/F., 24A Repulse Bay Road, Hong Kong ("the Flat"), whereas the Respondent is its landlord. The Applicant's application is for the grant of a new tenancy, and the only dispute between the parties is the amount of rent payable under the new tenancy. In the Notice of Opposition, the Respondent asked the Tribunal to set the rent of the new tenancy at HK$66,000.00.
2. The only available evidence before me for the purpose of assessing the rent payable under the new tenancy is the information contained in the following schedule of rental information provided by the Rating and Valuation Department: -
| Address | Year Built | Lift Service | Saleable Area (m2) | Ancillary Accommodation | Rent Passing ($pm) | Incl./Excl. Rates ($pm) | Commencement Date/ Lease Term | New Letting (NL)/ Renewal (R) | Remarks |
| （Subject Premises） | |||||||||
| S) 24A REPULSE BAY ROAD 1ST FLR & CAR PARK NO. 5 | 1977 | No | 204.2 | - | - | - | - | ||
| （Comparable Premises） | |||||||||
| 1) 24 REPULSE BAY RD 2 FLR & ROOF & 1 PARKING SPACE | 1977 | No | 204.2 | Top roof | 60000.00 | Excl. | 01/Jun/2002 24 Months | R | |
| 2) 69A REPULSE BAY ROAD 2ND FLR. & PARKING SPACE NOS. 2 & 7 | 1964 | No | 173.7 | Court | 60000.00 | Incl. 2465.00 | 01/June/2002 24 Months | NL | Reported rent included management charges $4364 per month. |
| 3) 19B REPULSE BAY ROAD 7TH FLR. & PARKING SPACE NO. 11 | 1965 | Yes | 183.3 | 58000.00 | Incl. 2536.50 | 24/May/2002 24 Months | NL | Reported rent included management charges. | |
| 4) 27 REPULSE BAY RD 2ND FLR FLAT B& PARKING SPACE NO. 25 ON G/F | 1979 | Yes | 205.5 | Communal swimming pool | 65000.00 | Incl. 3196.50 | 18/May/2002 24 Months | NL | Reported rent included management charges $6000 per month. |
| 5) 43 REPULSE BAY RD., 19TH FLR., FLAT A & PARKING SPACE NO. 27 ON LOWER G/F | 1974 | Yes | 225.1 | 55000.00 | Excl. | 17/May/2002 24 Months | R | Reported rent included chattels. | |
| 6) 45 REPULSE BAY RD 19TH FLR FLAT A & PARKING SPACE NO. 41 ON G/F | 1973 | Yes | 147.1 | 53500.00 | Incl. 2269.00 | 01/May/2002 24 Months | NL | Reported rent included management charges and domestic appliances. | |
Legend : Saleable area excludes any ancillary accommodation.
3. Mr. Pang Kai Yin, the Respondent's assistant manager, relies on the 2nd comparable to be his main comparable because the buildings in which the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th comparables can be found are high-rise buildings, whereas the building at No. 24A, Repulse Bay Road, is a low-rise building. After making adjustments to the rent of the 2nd comparable, he assessed the rent of the Flat to be $67,824.40. The assessments he made are as follows: -
69A | 24A | ||
| Rent inclusive | $60,000.00 | ||
| Rent exclusive | $53,171.00 | $53,171.00 | =60,000 - 2,465 - 4,364 |
| Area adjustment | $53,171.00 | $9,336.30 | =53,171/173.7*204.2 - 53,171 |
| Age adjustment | $53,171.00 | $531.71 | =53,171*1% |
| Surrounding adjustment | $53,171.00 | $1,063.42 | =53,171*2% |
| Appearance adjustment | $53,171.00 | $1,063.42 | =53,171*2% |
| View adjustment | $53,171.00 | $2,658.55 | =53,171*5% |
| $67,824.40 |
4. The fallacy of Mr. Pang's choice of the 2nd comparable as the main appropriate comparable is that he ignored the 1st comparable, which is located just next to the Flat. The purpose of ascertaining the rent of a flat by using the comparable method is to compare like with like. Being just next to the Flat, the 1st comparable is more suitable to be adopted as a comparable than the 2nd comparable, which is far away from the Flat, as can be seen from Exhibit No. R2.
5. If Mr. Pang's choice of the 2nd comparable is correct, then it is inexplicable why the assessed rent for the Flat should be $7,824.40 higher than the rent of the 1st comparable, when the Flat and the 1st comparable do share the same environment, face the same view and other similar features affecting rent (such as year built, saleable area, renewal tenancy).
6. I have no hesitation to adopt the 1st comparable as the most suitable comparable for the purpose of assessing the rent of the Flat under the new tenancy. Mr. Pang told me that the tenancy of the 1st comparable does not include the roof. Since the Respondent is also the landlord of the 1st comparable, I accept his evidence.
7. I cannot find any justification to make any adjustment to the rent of the 1st comparable when determining the rent of the Flat under the new tenancy. I therefore assess the rent of the Flat to be $60,000.
8. I impose the following orders: -
1. The Tribunal grants the Applicant a new tenancy for a duration of 2 years, namely, from 17th June 2002 to 16th June 2004, at a monthly rent of $60,000, exclusive of rates and management fees;
2. Other terms of the new tenancy shall be the same as the terms of the current tenancy;
3. There be no order as to costs.
| (H.H. Judge Chow) | |
| Presiding Officer, | |
| Lands Tribunal |
Representation:
The Applicant : represented by Madam Wong Sau Ling.
The Respondent : represented by Mr. Pang Kai Yin.