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

JurisdictionSingapore
CourtFederal Court (Singapore)
JudgeM Buttrose J
Judgment Date06 April 1967
Neutral Citation[1967] SGFC 7
Citation[1967] SGFC 7
Date06 April 1967
Published date19 September 2003
Plaintiff CounselTan Peng Khoo (Oehlers & Chua)
Docket NumberCivil Appeal No Y48 of 1966
Defendant CounselSHD Elias (Elias Brothers)

In this action the plaintiff claimed possession of premises at No 203, South Bridge Road, Singapore, of which the defendants were monthly tenants on the ground that they had knowingly committed breaches of the Municipal Ordinance (SS Cap 133) and the Building By-laws made thereunder affecting the premises which exposed the plaintiff to a penalty or fine.

Section 14 of the Control of Rent Ordinance (Cap 242), (hereinafter referred to as `the Ordinance`), provides that `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 out in this Part of this Ordinance`.

The plaintiff claimed it was entitled to possession under s 15(1)(h) of the Ordinance which reads as follows:

In the case of all premises such an order or judgment 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 the premises under him has knowingly committed a 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 plaintiff`s case was that by virtue of s 144(12) of the Municipal Ordinance (SS Cap 133) which was in force at the material time, namely, in July 1961, the building operations commenced or carried out by the defendants were deemed to have been commenced or carried out by it and it was liable for breaches and by s 144(10) of the same Ordinance it was liable to a fine and a mandatory order might be made requiring it to alter or demolish the building.

The defendants admitted that they commenced and carried out the building operations particulars of which were set out in the statement of claim and that the work was commenced and completed in July 1961. Further it was not in dispute that the defendants carried out the work without submitting a plan to the proper authority or that there was a breach of s 144(7) of the Municipal Ordinance or that the work carried out constituted breaches of the Building By-laws.

It was argued that it had not been established in this case that the defendants committed the breaches `knowingly` as required by the section. This raised a clear cut issue of fact and was dealt with by the trial judge in this way:

In this case the evidence is that in November 1960, the defendants submitted a plan signed by themselves, their architect and the plaintiffs to the
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Singapore Hotel v Airport Hire Cars
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 3 September 1968
    ...the defendant. Farquharson v Pearl Assurance Co Ltd [1937] 3 All ER 124 (folld) Ho Tong Cheong v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd [1965-1967] SLR (R) 538 (folld) Hooi Chuk Kwong v Lim Saw Choo [1958] MLJ 5 (folld) Control of Rent Ordinance (Cap 242, 1955Rev Ed)ss 15 (1) (a), 15 (1) (b), 15 ......
  • Tay Sai Hiang v Tan Ee Keok
    • Singapore
    • Federal Court (Singapore)
    • 16 February 1968
    ...& Ong) for the respondent. Hooi Chuk Kwong v Lim Saw Choo [1958] MLJ 5 (refd) Ho Tong Cheong v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd [1965-1967] SLR (R) 538 (refd) Control of Rent Ordinance (Cap 242, 1955Rev Ed)s 15 (1) (h) (consd) Municipal Ordinance1935 (No 59 of 1935)ss 144 (7), 144 (10), 144......
  • Teo Boon Hong v Tan Ewe Wah
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 15 September 1980
    ...for the appellant Mah Kok Weng (Mak, Pala, Selvadurai & Tan) for the respondent. Ho Tong Cheong v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd [1965-1967] SLR (R) 538; [1965-1968] SLR 247 (refd) Tay Sai Hiang v Tan Ee Keok [1968-1970] SLR (R) 14; [1965-1968] SLR 280 (refd) Control of Rent Act (Cap 266,......
  • Ho Tong Cheong and Others v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd
    • Singapore
    • Privy Council
    • 15 January 1969

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