Ho Tong Cheong and Others v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd

• Jurisdiction: UK Non-devolved
• Court: Privy Council
• Judge: Lord Guest
• Judgment Date: 15 January 1969
• Neutral Citation: [1969] SGPC 1
• Citation: [1969] SGPC 1
• Docket Number: Privy Council Appeal No 22 of 1967
• Plaintiff Counsel: JG Le Quesne QC and Adrian Hamilton (Parker Garrett & Co)
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Date: 15 January 1969
• Defendant Counsel: LA Blundell QC, Ronald Bernstein and Christopher Priday (Titmuss Sainer & Webb)

This appeal is concerned with the construction of a provision of the Singapore Control of Rent Ordinance 1953. The respondent landlords claim possession of premises No 203 South Bridge Road, Singapore, from their tenants, the appellants. There is also a claim for arrears of rent and mesne profits. In the High Court at Singapore Chua J gave judgement for the respondents. His order was unanimously affirmed by the Federal Court of Malaysia.

Section 14 of the Control of Rent Ordinance (Cap 242) provides as follows:

No order or judgment for the recovery of possession of any premises comprised in a tenancy shall be made or given except in the cases set our in this Part of this Ordinance.

Section 15(1)(h) provides:

In the case of all premises such an order or judgement as is referred to in s 14 of this Ordinance may be made in any of the following cases, namely:

...

( h ) Where the tenant or any other person occupying premises under him has knowingly committed breach of any written law regulating any business carried on upon the premises or of any provision of the Municipal Ordinance or of any rule or by-law made thereunder affecting the premises which exposes the landlord to any penalty, fine or forfeiture;

The word `knowingly` was added in 1953 as an amendment to the Control of Rent Ordinance 1947 (s 14(1)(k)). The relevant provisions of the Municipal Ordinance (Cap 133) are contained in s 144:

(1) Every person intending to erect any building shall submit to the commissioners plans and specifications of the proposed building prepared in accordance with this Ordinance and the building by-laws. When such plans and specifications are certified by the Municipal Architect or Municipal Engineer to be in accordance with this Ordinance and the building by-laws, they may be approved by the president on behalf of the commissioners.

...

(7) No person shall commence any building operations involving the erection of a building or, in the case of any operations the progress whereof has been suspended for a period exceeding three months, resume any such building operations unless:

(a) he has given to the commissioners four days` notice of his intention to commence or resume such operations with particulars of the intended works; and

(b) a plan and specification of the building have been approved by the commissioners or the president within one year before the date of the notice.

...

(10) Any person who:

(a) commences or resumes building operations in contravention of sub-s (7);

...

shall be liable to a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars and to a daily fine of twenty-five dollars for every day on which the offence is continued after conviction ...

(11) For the purposes of this section and of ss 144B, 145 and 146 a person shall be deemed to erect a building who:

...

(g) infringes the provisions of this Ordinance as to buildings or of the building by-laws; or

(h) renews or repairs any existing building in such a manner as to involve a renewal, reconstruction or erection of any portion of an outer or party wall to the extent of one storey in height whatever the material of such

...