Khew Ah Bah v Hong Ah Mye

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choor Singh J
• Judgment Date: 22 June 1971
• Neutral Citation: [1971] SGHC 8
• Docket Number: Suit No 61 of 1969
• Date: 22 June 1971
• Year: 1971
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Edward YT Loke (Edward YT Loke)
• Citation: [1971] SGHC 8
• Defendant Counsel: Tan Sri Syed Esa Almenoar (Almenoar & Co)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Landlord claiming possession of premises,Recovery of possession,Landlord buying land and claiming possession of house,How equity satisfied,Landlord and Tenant,Whether tenant acquired equity,Tenant carrying out repairs to house,Control of Rent Ordinance,Whether house amounted to new building,Tenant purchasing house and paying rent to owner of land

This is a claim for possession of house No 106-B Coronation Road West, Singapore, which is occupied by the defendant.

The facts shortly are these. The house in question was formerly known as 398-1 Coronation Road West, Singapore. There is no evidence as to when it was first built or who built it but it is agreed by the parties that it was built some time before 1934 as an attap house with the permission of the owner of the land, one Palainappa Chettiar, who was paid $3 per mensem as ground rent. The earliest known owner of the attap house was one Ng Kew.

The defendant alleges that he purchased the attap house from Ng Kew in 1934 for $110 and ever since has been paying $3 per month as ground rent to the owner of the land. The plaintiff`s witness Theynappa alleges that in 1934 he was the agent in Singapore of Palainappa Chettiar who was then in India; that in that year Ng Kew sold the hut for $150 to Palainappa Chettiar and that soon thereafter the house was let to the defendant at a rental of $3 per month. I find this difficult to believe. I accept the defendant`s version which is supported by his witnesses that he purchased the attap house from Ng Kew for $110 and thereafter paid $3 per month as ground rent to the owner of the land. There is further support for the defendant`s version and it will appear as the story unfolds. Palainappa Chettiar died in India and in 1952 the property was sold by the administrator of his estate to one KVRK Ramanathan. The description in the conveyance of the property conveyed does not mention any house. In 1956 Ramanathan sold the property to M Theynappa Ltd and again the description in the conveyance of the property conveyed does not mention any house. Furthermore, by their letter dated 3 July 1957, Messrs Eber & Tan the solicitors for the vendor informed the Secretary of the Rural Board that `only the land was conveyed by Ramanathan to M Theynappa Ltd`. In my opinion this letter proves conclusively that the house on the land belongs to the defendant. In 1963 M Theynappa Ltd sold the property to the plaintiff who acquired it subject to the defendant`s right in respect of the land because a purchaser steps into the shoes of the vendor and takes the title of the vendor subject to existing rights. On 27 November 1968, the plaintiff served a notice to quit on the defendant calling upon him to `quit and deliver up possession of the whole of the house known as No 106-B Coronation Road West (formerly known as 398-1 Coronation Road West) held by you as tenant of the plaintiff at the rental o f $3 per month`.

The plaintiff contends that the house was rebuilt in 1963; that it is a `new building` within the meaning of the Control of Rent Ordinance; that consequently it does not come within the purview of the said Ordinance and that as the tenancy has been determined he is not precluded from recovering possession of the premises.

The first question which arises for determination is whether or not the premises are affected by the Control of Rent Ordinance. The defendant concedes that he has been repairing and renovating the house from time to time but he denies that it was rebuilt in 1963. I was invited to inspect the premises which I did and I must say that the visit to the house in question was very helpful. One cannot make out much from photographs and plans and there is nothing like seeing the building which is the subject of the dispute. Having considered carefully the evidence of all the witnesses on this point and having inspected the photographs of the old attap house and the photographs and plans of the present house which stands on the land and having seen the house I have no doubt at all that it is no longer the `attap house` which was first permitted to be erected on the land by the then landlord. It has changed in character and is now a semi-permanent house of timber with zinc roofing, larger in area than the old attap house and also quite different from it in shape, size and appearance. There is also a stone retaining wall which does not appear in the old photographs. Several other improvements have been made. There is now a verandah along the whole front of the house. The house is painted with oil paint. It is difficult to say whether the old attap house was completely demolished at any time after 1934 but the present house has very little resemblance to it. The last occasion when major repairs were done was in 1963 and they were carried out with the approval of the Chief...