Lai Seng Fook v Tang Kong Low

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Court: Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
• Judge: Chua F A J
• Judgment Date: 17 January 1978
• Neutral Citation: [1978] SGCA 4
• Citation: [1978] SGCA 4
• Subject Matter: Creation of tenancy,Claim for possession,Landlord and Tenant,Whether appellant was respondent's tenant
• Plaintiff Counsel: Tan Bar Tien (Boey, Ng & Wan)
• Defendant Counsel: S Vellupillai (Donaldson & Burkinshaw)
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 10 of 1977
• Date: 17 January 1978
• Published date: 19 September 2003

Cur Adv Vult

(delivering the judgement of the court): The respondent, Tang Kong Low, instituted proceedings in the District Court against the appellant, Lai Seng Fook, for possession of premises known as No 29 Race Course Lane, arrears of rent and mesne profits. The premises were not subject to the Control of Rent Act and the only issue was whether the appellant was the respondent`s tenant.

The facts as found by the district judge were these. The respondent let the premises in 1954 to one Mdm Tang Siew who did not personally occupy the premises but sublet the whole of it to several subtenants. Madam Tang Siew died in 1967 to 1968. One or two years before her death the appellant, her son-in-law, paid the rent on her behalf. Thereafter, the appellant continued to pay the rent to the respondent and to receive the rents from the sub-tenants. He requested the respondent to issue the rent receipt in his name but was told by the respondent that until he obtained letters of administration to the deceased`s estate the rent receipts would continue to be made out in the name of the deceased. In May 1971 the respondent, with knowledge that Mdm Tang Siew had died through his solicitors served a notice to quit addressed `To Mdm Tang Siew ... ` on the appellant determining the tenancy on 30 June 1971. Accompanying the notice to quit was a letter also addressed to Mdm Tang Siew containing an offer of a new tenancy as from 1 July 1971 at an increased rent. Thereafter the appellant continued to pay rent to the respondent. In November 1974 the appellant agreed to pay an increased rent from December 1974 and in December 1974 he paid the respondent the agreed December rent and the rent receipt was issued in the appellant`s name. In January 1975 the respondent served on the appellant a notice to quit addressed to the appellant determining the tenancy on 28 February 1975.

On these facts the district judge found that...