Amirul Akbar bin Abdul Kadir v Lye Kok Leong

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Tan May Tee
• Judgment Date: 17 March 2023
• Neutral Citation: [2023] SGDC 49
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: District Court Suit No 2676 of 2019
• Hearing Date: 03 December 2022,21 September 2022,27 July 2022
• Citation: [2023] SGDC 49
• Year: 2023
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mohammad Shafiq bin Haja Maideen (M Shafiq Chambers LLC)
• Defendant Counsel: Defendant in person.
• Subject Matter: Landlord and Tenant,Notice to quit,Arrears of rent,Holding over and double rent,Civil procedure,Pleadings,Evidence,Burden of proof
• Published date: 04 May 2023

District Judge Tan May Tee: Introduction

This is a landlord-tenant dispute.

The plaintiff is the sole owner and landlord (referred to where appropriate as “Landlord”) of the property known as 28 Jalan Keria Singapore 588549 (“the Property”). He is an airline pilot by occupation, and at the time of the trial, was employed by Turkish Airlines.¹ His claim against the defendant in this action is for recovery of possession of the Property as well as for arrears in rental and double rent for holding over of the Property upon termination of the tenancy.

The defendant is a teacher. While he had represented himself in these proceedings, the defendant is not someone who is unlearned in the law as he holds an honours degree in law from the University of Nottingham². The defendant had rented the Property as a residence for his family comprising his wife and four children as well as their domestic helper³. They have occupied the Property from October 2016 and continue to remain in possession of the Property even up to the date of the trial.

The defendant has resisted the plaintiff’s attempts to recover possession of the Property and has instead made a counterclaim for damages against the plaintiff for breaches of the tenancy agreement, fraudulent misrepresentation and conspiracy by unlawful means. The defendant had rented the Property through one Lim Leng Koi also known as Daniel Lim (“Lim”), a property agent with ERA Realty Network Pte Ltd (“ERA”) representing the plaintiff at all material times. Both Lim and ERA were named as the second and third defendants in the defendant’s counterclaim but they have not been properly brought into this action as required by the Rules of Court 2014. Hence, they did not appear, nor did they participate, in these proceedings.

Chronological background October 2016 to September 2018

At the end of September 2016, the defendant had met Lim at the Property and negotiated the terms of the tenancy agreement which he eventually signed on 3 October 2016. The tenancy agreement bearing the letterhead of ERA stipulated that it was for a term of twenty-four months from 8 October 2016 to 7 October 2018 at the monthly rent of $3,400 payable in advance on the eighth day of each month. Payment was to be made direct into the bank account of the Landlord. At the time of signing of the tenancy agreement, the defendant paid the first month’s rental together with the security deposit of $6,800 being two months’ rental.

As requested by the defendant and incorporated into the signed tenancy agreement (“TA-1”) were inter alia: the inclusion of a guaranteed option to renew the lease for a further period of one year with the renewal period commencing at the expiration of the initial lease term on 7 October 2018 at the same monthly rent of $3400⁴; the deletion of the words “the Landlord shall be entitled to re-enter” the premises upon non-payment of rent or breach of any of the Tenant’s covenants⁵; and the reduction of the interest rate claimable by the Landlord on default in payment of rent from 10% per annum to 1.5% per annum⁶.

Although the defendant and his family moved into the Property on 3 October 2016, no further payment of rental was made until 1 August 2017. This was because the defendant was not given the plaintiff’s bank account number for the payments to be credited. According to the defendant, Lim did not answer his calls nor his email of 8 November 2016 in which he had requested for a hard copy of the signed tenancy agreement, the Landlord’s bank account number as well as various repairs to be carried out in the kitchen.

It was only on 31 July 2017 when Lim contacted the defendant by a WhatsApp message stating that the Landlord had not received his rental payments that the defendant was provided the bank account number⁷. The defendant then made payment of all the outstanding rentals in two tranches as agreed with Lim. The first payment for the rentals from November 2016 to March 2017 totalling $17,000 was paid on 1 August 2017 into the plaintiff’s bank account. The second payment of $13,600 on 18 August 2017 for the rentals for April 2017 to July 2017 was made on 18 August 2017⁸.

On 15 August 2017, the defendant notified Lim that he would refuse to make further rental payments as Lim had not responded to his emails and requests for the kitchen repairs to be carried out. While there is no evidence as to whether all the requested repairs were carried out, the defendant did make sporadic payments of rental by internet bank transfers carried out on 7 February 2018, 8 March 2018, 11 April 2018, 10 June 2018, 9 August 2018 and 10 September 2018⁹.

On 2 May 2018, the defendant met the plaintiff for the first time when the plaintiff attended at the Property together with some workers to effect repairs to the kitchen¹⁰. The defendant asked him for the physical copy of TA-1 but was told to get it from Lim.

September/October 2018 to June 2019

Despite the defendant’s irregular rental payments and despite the plaintiff’s failure to respond to the defendant’s requests, Lim, on behalf of the plaintiff, sent a WhatsApp message to the defendant on 28 September 2018 to query whether he wished to renew the tenancy. Lim had asked the defendant if he wanted to renew for one or two years. The defendant responded stating that he wanted two years and also proposed a token reduction of $200 in the rental. Lim then replied to say that he had forwarded the defendant’s request to the Landlord.

On 3 October 2018, the defendant received Lim’s reply in which he forwarded the Landlord’s message which stated that the rent would be $3,300 for the next two years. The subsequent exchange of messages between Lim and the defendant is critical to the dispute between the parties and I reproduce it below in full¹¹:

Hi Mr Kok Leong, Just Received the reply from landlord as below:

Hi Daniel, The rent will be $3,300 for the next two years. I hope to see you sooo. Thank you.

(from Lim at 4.25pm)

Ok...3300 is agreeable...pls send me for review...

(from the defendant at 5.22pm)

Ok?

(from the defendant at 5.23pm)

Thank you sir.

Will prepare the TA and forward to you.

(from Lim at 6.14pm)

Please do not use the standard one..u know i will not accept...use the previous one....include the 1 year guaranteed option... remove the clause about the tenant liability for your commission

(from the defendant at 7.36pm)

Ok?

(from the defendant at 7.36pm)

On 10 October 2018, the defendant received Lim’s email which stated¹²:

Dear Mr Kok Leong

Please find attached the revised Renewal TA of 28 Jalan Keria.

Thanks & Best Regards.

Daniel Lim

The attached document¹³ named as “ERA-TA-28 Jalan Keria (Renewal 2018)” contained all the terms that the defendant had stipulated in his WhatsApp messages to Lim on 3 October 2018. The defendant replied to the email stating:

Hi Daniel

I have looked…Looks ok….

thanks

kokleong

Notably, the document also bore the ERA letterhead and was titled “Tenancy Agreement (PTE)” similar to TA-1, the first tenancy agreement that the defendant had signed on 3 October 2016. Clause 1 of the renewal tenancy agreement (“TA-2”) provided that:

The Landlord agrees to let and the Tenant agrees to take all that property known as 28 JALAN KERIA, SINGAPORE (hereinafter called “the said premises”) … TO HOLD unto the Tenant from the 8th day of October 2018 to 7th day of October 2020 for a term of TWENTY FOUR (24) months, at the rent of DOLLARS THREE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED (S$3,300.00) per month (inclusive of Goods and Services Tax, if applicable)

The Tenant shall have the guaranteed option to renew the lease for a further period of One (1) year with the renewal period commencing at the expiration of the initial lease term on 7th October 2020 at the monthly rent of (S$3,300.00) per month (inclusive of Goods and Services Tax, if applicable).

As it turned out, neither party had signed TA2 and no signed copy was produced at the trial. The defendant, however, claimed that he had made rental payments for the months of October 2018 to January 2019 totalling $13,200¹⁴.

On 30 October 2018, one Ms Jacqueline Wee of the Singapore Land Authority (“SLA”) visited the Property and delivered a letter addressed to the plaintiff. The letter was handed over to the defendant’s domestic helper with instructions for the defendant to open and read the letter. The letter dated 27 August 2018 which was addressed to the plaintiff at the Property and with a stamp indicating that it had been sent by registered post stated as follows¹⁵:

FAILURE TO DISPOSE OF YOUR INTEREST IN 28 JALAN KERIA SINGAPORE 588549

Dear Mr Amirul Akbar

We note that you have ceased to be a Singapore Permanent Resident (PR).

Under Section 3A(1) of the Residential Property Act, you are required to dispose of your interest in the subject property within 2 years from the date of cessation of your Singapore permanent residence.

Under Section 3A(2) of the Residential Property Act, any individual who contravenes Section 3A(1) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $20,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to both.

Our records show that you have not disposed of your interest in the subject property within the period of 2 years from the date of cessation of your Singapore permanent residence. As such you are in breach of Section 3A(1).

You are therefore required to write to us by 10 September 2018 to explain why you have not disposed of your interest in the subject property and to request an extension time to do so. If you are not granted an extension time to dispose of the property, the Minister may issue to the Controller of Residential Property a notice to attach and sell the subject property.

Pending the disposal of your interest in the subject property, you are not to use the subject property for rental or any other purpose.

We...