Ambrose J:

The point for determination in this appeal was this: does s. 15(2) of the Control of Rent Ordinance require the notice of demand under s. 15(1)(a) to state whether the person to whom the rent lawfully due may be tendered by the tenant is the landlord or not? The learned District Judge held that it does. He further decided that the notice of demand in this action was not a proper demand as it did not comply with this requirement, and dismissed the claim for possession solely on that ground. Section 15(2) provides that for the purposes of s. 15(1)(a):

a notice of demand shall give the name and address of the person, whether he is the landlord or not, to whom the rent lawfully due may be tendered by the tenant ...

In my opinion, the true construction of s. 15(2) is this. It states that the notice of demand shall give the name and address of the person to whom the rent lawfully due may be tendered by the tenant. It provides that this requirement shall be complied with, whether the person to whom the rent may be tendered is the landlord or not. In my view, it does not require the notice of demand to state whether the person to whom the rent may be tendered is the landlord or not.

Apart from his opinion that the notice of demand was not a proper one, the District Judge considered it reasonable that an order for possession should be made in favour of the plaintiff. In the circumstances, I set aside his judgment and made an order requiring the defendant to give possession of the premises to the plaintiff on or before 29 February 1960.

Order accordingly.