Indo-Australian Trading Co Ltd v Krishnasamy

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeChoor Singh J
Judgment Date29 February 1972
Neutral Citation[1972] SGHC 1
Docket NumberSuit No 366 of 1967
Date29 February 1972
Year1972
Published date19 September 2003
Plaintiff CounselPeter Williams (Williams & Tennakoon)
Citation[1972] SGHC 1
Defendant CounselLAJ Smith (LAJ Smith)
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Subject MatterRecovery of possession,Claim for rent and mesne profits,Section 15(1)(g) Control of Rent Act (Cap 266, 1970 Rev Ed),Landlord and Tenant,Tenancy or licence

The plaintiff company is the owner of shophouse no 100 Serangoon Road, Singapore, and it claims from the defendant possession of the said premises which is let to him on a monthly tenancy at a rent of $115 per mensem.

The plaintiff company bought the premises in question in July 1966 and at that time the defendant was already the tenant of the premises.
After purchasing the premises the plaintiff accepted the defendant as its tenant. The defendant was then occupying the back portion of the ground floor. The front portion of the ground floor was divided into two sections with a passage in between the two sections. The area on the left of the passage was occupied by one SV Bhargavan, a watchmaker, who paid the defendant $80 per month. The area on the right of the passage-way was occupied by one Pranilal, a textile dealer, who paid the defendant $170 per mensem. The first floor of the premises was occupied by a Chinese named Wan Nam who paid the defendant $50 per mensem. Wan Nam paid for the water and light charges in respect of the first floor. The defendant paid for all the water and light charges in respect of the ground floor and these according to him varied between $110 and $130 per mensem.

On 28 September 1966 the plaintiff company, through its solicitors, gave the defendant notice to quit which expired on 31 October 1966.
The defendant refused to vacate the premises and on 6 March 1967, the plaintiff company issued the writ in these proceedings claiming possession of the premises from the defendant, the sum of $460 being four months rent in respect of the months July to October 1966 and mesne profits.

The premises come within the purview of the Control of Rent Act (Cap 266, 1970 Ed) and the defendant claims the protection of the said Act.
The plaintiff company relies on para (g) of s 15(1) of the said Act which reads as follows:

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

(g) where the tenant having sublet the premises or part thereof receives in respect of that subletting, rents (excluding any municipal services paid by the tenant) for any sublet part of the premises in excess of the recoverable rent for that part, or rents which exceed in the aggregate one hundred and ten per cent of the recoverable rent paid by the tenant himself including the apportioned rental or value of any part of the premises retained by the tenant or not sublet by him.



The defendant`s case is that Bhargavan and Pranilal were both licensees and not sub-tenants and that the monthly sums received from them were licence fees and not rents.
Agreements made between the defendant and Bhargavan (exhs P2, P3 and D3) and between the defendant and Pranilal (exh D2) have been produced. As regards Wan Nam who occupied the first floor, the defendant admits that he was a subtenant who paid $50 per mensem as rent.

In the case of Bhargavan, he came on the premises in January 1958 by virtue of the agreement dated 16 January 1958 (exh P2).
Under this agreement he paid a deposit of $2,000 and was granted a licence to occupy a space 16 ft by 5 ft on the north side of the ground floor. He was to pay a licence fee of $80 per mensem. The agreement was for a term of three years commencing 15 January 1958. On 14 January 1961 a new agreement (exh D3) was entered into between the defendant and Bhargavan under which a deposit of $2,000 was paid for the same space on the north side of the ground floor. A licence fee of $80 per mensem was to be paid and this agreement was for a term of one year commencing 15 January 1961. On 30 December 1961 a third agreement (exh P3) was entered into between the defendant and Bhargavan. Under this agreement a deposit of $6,000 was paid for the same space on the north side of the ground floor and the licence fee was to be $80 per mensem. This agreement was for a term of five years. Bhargavan is said to have left the premises on the expiry of this agreement.

In the case of Pranilal, the agreement was entered between his wife Mdm Umiyaben Pranilal and defendant.
It is dated 16 August 1963 (exh D2). Under this agreement a sum of $6,000 was paid as deposit for the use and occupation of the left half portion of the ground floor measuring nine ft by 30 ft. A licence fee of $170 per mensem was to be paid and the agreement was for a period of five years.

It is clear that at the date of the determination of the tenancy, ieon 31 October 1966, the defendant was in receipt of a total sum of $300 per mensem from three persons who occupied separate and distinct portions of the premises, namely Bhargavan and Pranilal who occupied portions on the ground floor and Wan Nam who occupied the first floor of the premises.
The defendant paid a rent of $115 per mensem and paid the monthly consolidated bill which he says varied between $110 and $130 per mensem. The defendant occupied the whole of the rear portion of the ground floor where he and his brother`s family lived. His brother had seven children which means that there were ten of them using the rear portion of the building as a dwelling and consequently a considerable portion of the water and light used on the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Yit Sin Co Pte Ltd v United Overseas Bank Ltd
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 23 September 1980
    ... ... (This passage was cited with approval by Choor Singh J in the case of Indo-Australian Trading Co Ltd v Krishnasamy [1972-1974] SLR 278 ): ... We have had many cases lately ... ...

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