Jewellery Industries (S) Pte Ltd v Sintat Rent-a-Car Pte Ltd

CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
JudgeJudith Prakash JC
Judgment Date07 May 1993
Neutral Citation[1993] SGHC 101
Citation[1993] SGHC 101
Plaintiff CounselAmbika Rajendram (Cheow Hin & Partners)
Published date19 September 2003
Docket NumberOriginating Summons No 1175 of
Defendant CounselGoh Yong Hong (Wong & Goh)
Date07 May 1993
Subject MatterAgreements for leases,Option to renew,Whether option void for uncertainty,Validity and enforceability,Landlord and Tenant

The question posed by this originating summons was whether a clause contained in a tenancy agreement which purportedly conferred on the tenant an option to renew the tenancy for a further period was a valid and enforceable option.

There was no dispute as to the material facts. By a tenancy agreement dated 1 November 1989, the plaintiffs leased to the defendants commercial premises in Henderson Industrial Park (`the premises`) for a period of three years commencing on that date and ending on 31 October 1992, at a monthly rental of $12,000. Clause 3(c) of the tenancy agreement (`the option`) provided:

(3) And the landlord hereby agrees with the tenant as follows:


(c) provided always that the landlord does not intend to sell or dispose of [the premises] the landlord shall on the written request of the tenant made not less than three (3) months before the expiration of the term hereby created and if there shall not at the time of such request be any existing breach or non-observance of any of the covenants on the part of the tenant hereinbefore contained grant the tenant (at the tenant`s costs and expenses (sic) to execute a renewed tenancy (sic) and counterpart thereof) an extension of two (2) years from the expiration of the term hereby created subject only to the right of the landlord to review the rental payable and upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed by the parties hereto with the exception of the present provision for renewal.

By letter dated 20 July 1992 the defendants purported to exercise the option. In the letter the defendants asked the plaintiffs: `Please let us know the new rental payable together with the terms and conditions of the new agreement.`

Subsequently (the precise date was not in evidence) the plaintiffs informed the defendants that they intended to sell the premises and that accordingly the option could not be exercised. The defendants disputed the plaintiffs` ability to nullify the option on the basis that an intention to sell would only prevent the option being exercised if the plaintiffs had entered into an agreement for sale of the premises. Their solicitors contended in a letter dated 11 August 1992 to the plaintiffs` solicitors that: `In the absence of an actual sale, [the plaintiffs] are obliged to grant [the defendants] an extension of two years ...`. The defendants` solicitors also proposed that an arbitrator be appointed to determine the proper interpretation of the clause. This suggestion was not accepted by the plaintiffs.

The defendants did not vacate the premises on 31 October 1992. On 6 November the plaintiffs` solicitors wrote to the defendants` solicitors stating, inter alia, that:

(i) there had not been an agreement to renew the tenancy in all respects including the renewed rental and the terms and conditions of the renewed tenancy;

(ii) the tenancy had therefore expired on 31 October 1992;

(iii) the defendants` continuing occupation of the premises was unlawful and amounted to a holding over for which the defendants were liable to the plaintiffs.

The letter concluded by demanding that the premises be delivered to the plaintiffs within seven days from the date thereof and giving the defendants notice that, in default, proceedings for recovery of possession would be commenced.

On the same day, on a without prejudice basis, the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Masa-Katsu Japanese Restaurant Pte Ltd v Amara Hotel Properties Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 23 June 1998
    ...entered into between members of the public. I was also referred to Jewellery Industries (S) Pte Ltd v Sintat Rent-a-Car Pte Ltd [1993] 2 SLR 623 and Klerk-Elias Liza v KT Chan Clinic Pte Ltd [1993] 2 SLR 417 . 21.In Bushwall Properties the question was whether an enforceable contract had be......
  • Climax Manufacturing Co Ltd v Colles Paragon Converters (S) Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 23 September 1998
    ...& Partners) for the plaintiff Philip Lam (Foo & Liew) for the defendant. Jewellery Industries (S) Pte Ltd v Sintat Rent-a-Car Pte Ltd [1993] 1 SLR (R) 744; [1993] 2 SLR 623 (distd) May & Butcher v R [1934] 2 KB 17 (refd) Walford v Miles [1992] 2 AC 128; [1992] 1 All ER 453 (distd) Rules of ......
  • Rudhra Minerals Pte Ltd v MRI Trading Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 25 September 2013
    ...147 LT 503 (folld) Hussey v Horne-Payne (1879) 4 App Cas 311 (distd) Jewellery Industries (S) Pte Ltd v Sintat Rent-a-Car Pte Ltd [1993] 1 SLR (R) 744; [1993] 2 SLR 623 (refd) Masters v Cameron [1954] 91 CLR 353 (refd) Norwest Holdings Pte Ltd v Newport Mining Ltd [2011] 4 SLR 617 (folld) O......
  • Rudhra Minerals Pte Ltd v MRI Trading Pte Ltd (formerly known as CWT Integrated Services Pte Ltd)
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 25 September 2013
    ...regard to two Singapore cases dealing with the phrase “to be agreed”. In Jewellery Industries (S) Pte Ltd v Sintat Rent-a-Car Pte Ltd [1993] 1 SLR(R) 744 (“Jewellery Industries”), Judith Prakash JC held that an option for renewal of a lease which provided that the renewed tenancy was to be ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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