Indo-Australian Trading Co (Pte) Ltd v Tan Tong Peng

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chua F A J
• Judgment Date: 05 April 1977
• Neutral Citation: [1977] SGHC 6
• Docket Number: District Court Appeal No 18 of 1976
• Date: 05 April 1977
• Year: 1977
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: LAJ Smith (LAJ Smith)
• Citation: [1977] SGHC 6
• Defendant Counsel: Adab Singh (Asst Director of Legal Aid)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Landlord and Tenant,Whether house after being renovated was a 'new building',Whether house came within definition of 'premises',Rent-controlled premises,s 2 Control of Rent Act (Cap 266, 1970 Ed),Termination of leases,Claim for possession

This is an appeal by the plaintiffs, the owner of Lot 105-2 Mukim 28 Changi, against the decision of the district judge dismissing the plaintiffs` action against the defendant for possession of 27,405 sq ft of land situate on Lot 105-2 Mukim 28, Changi (Lot 105-2) together with the house erected thereon known as No 391E Jalan Tiga Ratus (No 391E).

It was not in dispute that the plaintiffs purchased Lot 105-2 in 1950. It was agreed between the parties that the defendant was the ground tenant of the 27,405 sq feet of land and that No 391E was built by the defendant.

The substantial issue in this action was whether or not No 391E came within the definition of `premises` contained in s 2 of the Control of Rent Act (Cap 266, 1970 Ed) (the Act). The plaintiffs contended that it did not while the defendant contended that it did.

`Premises` is defined in the Act to mean:

any dwelling house ... and any other building ... in which persons are employed or work ... and include any land whereon any such building is or has been erected with the consent of the landlord but does not include any new building built or completed after 7 September 1947.

The plaintiffs` case was that their Managing Director, Bachoo Singh, visited Lot 105-2 in 1963 and No 391E was being constructed and that before the erection of No 391E there was no building standing on the site but that there was one house of planks and attap roof bearing no number at the vicinity and this was demolished after No 391E was erected. No 391E was completed in 1963 and three photographs of it (exhs P1 to P3) were taken. (The parties agreed that these photographs show the premises as at 1963.)

To put it shortly the plaintiffs` case was that No 391E was a new building erected after 7 September 1947.

The defendant`s case, on the other hand, was that No 391E was built during the Japanese occupation of Singapore in 1941 or 1942. It was originally of plank walls and attap roof and that in 1945 it was renovated and enlarged. The present house is made of plank walls and zinc roof, which was put on in 1960. At the beginning the house was unnumbered but later a number 902 was nailed to it by some officers from the government and before the house was numbered No 391E Jalan Tiga Ratus, it was known as No 391E Mukim 28, Changi Road.

To put it shortly the defendant`s case was that the house now known as No 391E Jalan Tiga Ratus had been at the same site since 1941 or 1942 and that in 1945 the house was renovated and enlarged.

The district judge`s finding was this:

Upon a consideration of all the evidence I found that premises No 391E Jalan Tiga Ratus was built before 7 September 1947 with the consent of defendant`s then landlord and therefore came within the definition of premises contained in the Control of Rent Act (Cap 266). I rejected the allegations by the plaintiff that the premises in question was built in 1963 and that a building in its vicinity was demolished after 391E Jalan Tiga Ratus was completed. I further found that though the house had undergone certain renovations, those renovations which were carried out over a period of time did not result in the premises becoming a new building.

The complaint of the appellant in this appeal is that the district judge was wrong in holding that the appellant had not proved that No 391E was a new house and not within the Act.

Counsel for the appellant submits that several admissions by the defendant referred to in the written grounds of judgment of the district judge substantially proved that the house shown in photograph P3 taken in 1963 was a completely different house from the attap hut built in 1945.

The admissions say counsel for the appellant appear in the following evidence of the defendant in cross-examination:

Q Is the window in P1 new?

A No, it had a new coat of paint. Window in P1 was not there in 1945. Just now I...