A LEGAL provision relating to landlords and tenants was struck down yesterday after being found to be in conflict with the Bill of Rights. District Court Judge Downey held that the bill repealed Section 53 (7F) of the Landlord and Tenant (Consolidation) Ordinance. Subsection 7F says that someone applying to the Lands Tribunal for possession of a premises will be deemed to have obtained an order for possession even if the application does not proceed and the tenant agrees to leave; or an order for possession is granted with the consent of the tenant or sub-tenant. Mr Martin Lee argued that the subsection contained presumptions that contravened Article 11 (1) of the Bill of Rights. The article provides that: ''Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.'' Mr Lee was representing Lau Kung-shing, 44, and his wife, Tan Jui-chih, 30, who were, until June 27, 1990, the owners of a 13th floor flat in Chungking Mansions. Lau and Tan had pleaded not guilty to assigning the premises without the authority of the Lands Tribunal within two years of obtaining an order for possession as provided by Section 53 (7F)(b) of the ordinance. Both were found not guilty. ''Without the aid of the provision, there is clearly no sufficient evidence to show an essential ingredient of the offence,'' Judge Downey said. ''The defendants are entitled to be acquitted.'' Prosecutor Mr Malcolm Nunns had argued that subsection (7F) was a definition section and was not in conflict with the Bill of Rights. Judge Downey said he was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants made an application to the Lands Tribunal on February 7, 1990, seeking an order for possession of the flat on the grounds that they required it as a residence for themselves. The court heard that no actual order for possession was ever made. But the prosecution said the law deemed Lau and Tan to have obtained such an order on February 7. In about March or April, 1990, the couple's tenant gave up possession of the flat as part of an agreement that the defendants buy a flat in the same building belonging to her and her husband, the court heard. But instead of living in the flat themselves, the defendants sold it for $788,000 on June 27, 1990.