Case Summary 2: There is no implied warranty that the premises would be fit for human habitation or the tenant's purpose (Chan Man Chong v Tong Chi Cheong)

Case Summary 2: There is no implied warranty that the premises would be fit for human habitation or the tenant's purpose (Chan Man Chong v Tong Chi Cheong)

Case Name: CHAN MAN CHONG v TONG CHI CHEONG [2017] 1 HKC 334 (Lands Tribunal)

Subject: Implied warranty that the premises was fit for human habitation or fit for the tenant’s purpose

Facts

1. The applicant (landlord) applied for recovery of vacant possession of the premises based on termination of the tenancy.
2. The respondent (tenant) opposed on the grounds that: 

• the landlord was not the owner of the premises as shown on the Land Registry, and
• the landlord was negligent in failing to inform the tenant that the premises would be affected by unnecessary noise and nuisance.

Issues

There were three main issues:

1. whether there was any implied warranty that the premises was fit for human habitation or fit for the tenant’s purpose;
2. whether the tenant is entitled to contest that landlord was not the owner of the premises; and
3. whether the landlord was entitled to vacant possession.

Rulings and Discussion

First, generally under common law, there is no implied warranty that the premises was fit for human habitation or fit for the tenant’s purpose.

Second, a tenant cannot defend a claim for vacant possession by alleging that the landlord has no interest in the property. The tenant cannot deny his landlord’s title.

Therefore, the applicant was entitled to vacant possession of the premises.

Takeaway

In general, under common law,

1. there is no implied warranty that the premises is fit for human habitation throughout the terms of the lease.
2. Neither is there a general implied warranty that the premises would be fit for the tenant’s purpose.
3. Noise or disorderly conduct on adjoining premises, even if it amounts to a nuisance, may not constitute a breach of the covenant; and the landlord is not liable merely for failing to prevent it, although he may have power to do so under an agreement with the tenant of those premises.

The intending tenant is presumed to make his own inquiries as to its condition, and, in the absence of a special stipulation, he takes the house as it stands.

To avoid dispute, 

1. parties should expressly state whether there is any warranty that the premises is fit for human habitation in the tenancy agreement; and
2. the tenant should take steps to satisfy himself/herself that the landlord is the registered owner before entering into the tenancy agreement. If necessary, parties should include an express warranty in the tenancy agreement to that effect.