Abdul Rahim v British and Malaya Trustees Ltd

Judgment Date23 March 1966
Date23 March 1966
Docket NumberSuits Nos 677 and 1216 of 1963
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
British & Malayan Trustees Ltd
Plaintiff
and
Abdul Jabbar and others
Defendant

[1966] SGHC 6

A V Winslow J

Suits Nos 677 and 1216 of 1963 (Consolidated)

High Court

Landlord and Tenant–Creation of tenancy–Contract–Whether the agreement created a licence or tenancy–Nature of agreement not dependent on the mere words of the contract

The plaintiffs were the current trustees of a trust. In 1958, one of the former trustees entered into a “tenancy agreement” with the defendants in relation to a space in a common passageway. Subsequently, extensions were made to the space occupied by the defendants who proceeded to occupy the enlarged space. The plaintiffs sought a determination of the defendants' right to use the space and for an injunction to restrain the tenant from continuing to use the space. The plaintiffs contended that the 1958 agreement was merely a licence and that even if it was a tenancy, the defendants did not have the right to move beyond the space provided in the 1958 agreement.

Held, allowing the application:

(1) The intention of the parties to the agreement must be sought not from the mere words of their contract, but its substance and the conduct of the parties and the surrounding circumstances can be scrutinised in order to determine whether or not all that was intended was that the occupier should be granted a personal privilege with no interest in the land. The relationship of the parties is determined by the law and not by the label which they choose to put on it: at [10].

(2) From the facts and circumstances of the case, the agreement only conferred a licence: at [10].

Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Pools Finance 1937 [1952] 1 All ER 775; [1952] 1 TLR 792 (refd)

Facchini v Bryson [1952] 1 TLR 1386 (refd)

Hancock v Austin (1863) 14 CBNS 634; 143 ER 593 (refd)

Rendell v Roman (1893) 9 TLR 192 (folld)

D G Ironside (Ironside & Desouza) for the plaintiffs

J Tan Chor Yong (J Tan Chor Yong & Co) for the defendant.

A V Winslow J

1 The plaintiffs apply, in this consolidated action, for a declaration that the right of the defendants in Suit No 677 of 1963 to use a space in the common passageway in the Arcade has been determined and also for an injunction to restrain the defendants in both suits from continuing to use a space nine feet high, fourteen feet eight inches wide and four feet eight inches deep in the same common passageway for their business.

2 Counsel for the defendants conceded that Abdul Rahim, the second defendant in Suit No 677 of 1963 is the same person as Kader Maideen son of Abdul Rahim, the first defendant in Suit No 1216 of 1963 and it is with this gentleman's claim to be a tenant of the plaintiffs and thereby entitled to the protection of the Control of Rent Ordinance (Cap 242) that I am primarily concerned.

3 The first defendant, Abdul Jabbar, in Suit No 677 of 1963 did not enter an appearance and I finalised the interlocutory...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Indo-Australian Trading Co Ltd v Krishnasamy
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 29 February 1972
    ...... . . . In Abdul Rahim v British and Malayan Trustees [1967] 1 MLJ 118 , ......
  • Abdul Rahim v British and Malaya Trustees Ltd
    • Singapore
    • Federal Court (Singapore)
    • 30 September 1966
    ...for the appellant's overstay at $40 per month until recovery of possession: at [11]. British & Malayan Trustees Ltd v Abdul Jabbar [1965-1967] SLR (R) 234 (refd) Cobb v Lane [1952] 1 All ER 1199; [1952] 1 TLR 1037 (folld) S Santhiran (J Tan Chor Yong & Co) for the appellant D G Ironside (Ir......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT