Murray-Aynsley CJ:

This appeal raises the question of the meaning of the word "temporary" in para. (i) of s. 15(1) of the Control of Rent Ordinance (No. 22 of 1953). The learned District Judge has found as a fact that the buildings in question were not of a "temporary character". The word "temporary" as applied to buildings has no precise meaning.Usually it refers to the purpose for which a building is erected, e.g. buildings erected for an exhibition.Here we have to consider the expression "temporary character". It is very much a question of degree; no building lasts for ever unless continually repaired.All buildings soon become uneconomic as we know from reading appeals for the preservation of cathedrals and other historic buildings.

There is evidence that the buildings in question had lasted up to 27 years and were still inhabited. I cannot, in the circumstances, say that the learned District Judge had no evidence to support his finding.

It was suggested at the hearing that the learned District Judge might have ordered possession as against the respondent of certain premises which had been sub-let.The Point was not taken in the Court below nor until Counsel for the appellants applied to amend at the hearing was it mentioned in the memorandum of appeal. I do not think that I ought to consider it now. I am doubtful in any event whether the English cases would apply here.

The appeal must be dismissed with costs.

Appeal dismissed.