Lee Hung Khoon v Yeo Tang Mui

• Judge: L P Thean J
• Judgment Date: 05 May 1990
• Neutral Citation: [1990] SGHC 33
• Citation: [1990] SGHC 33
• Defendant Counsel: M Amaladass (M Dass & Co)
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Lee Mun Hooi (Lee Bon Leong & Co)
• Date: 05 May 1990
• Docket Number: Motion In Suit No 1202 of 1989
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: ss 2 & 16 Control of Rent Act (Cap 58),Whether injunction should be allowed to continue,Failure to make full and frank disclosure at ex parte stage,Effect of failure,Balance of convenience,Continuance of interim injunction,Civil Procedure,Injunctions

By this notice of motion, the plaintiff applied for the continuation of the interim injunction granted to him on 26 June 1989, whereby the defendant was restrained, whether by herself or her agents or servants or otherwise and howsoever, from locking or obstructing the entrances to the premises known as 133 Rangoon Road, Singapore 0821 (the premises) or in any way from conducting herself in a manner that infringes, interferes or otherwise is inconsistent with the plaintiff`s rights and interest in the premises as a tenant thereof. The motion came for hearing before me, and at the conclusion I allowed it.

The relevant facts that gave rise to the application are briefly these. The plaintiff, Lee Hung Khoon, is the son of the late Lee Ah Yong, who passed away on 6 July 1987. Lee Ah Yong during his lifetime was the tenant of the premises, 133 Rangoon Road, Singapore 0821; he rented the premises from the trustees of Thian Yew Tong Temple, who at that time were the owners. The premises are premises within the meaning of the Control of Rent Act (Cap 58) (the Act). In August 1972, Lee Ah Yong sublet a portion of the ground floor of the premises to Hua Huat Credit Pte Ltd (Hua Huat), retaining the remaining portion of the premises. It appears that Hua Huat subsequently, in turn, sublet a portion of the ground floor to Hima Shipping Pte Ltd and Hima Marine Transport Pte Ltd, and in respect of these sublettings legal proceedings were instituted in the subordinate courts in DC Summons No 15299 of 1985 by Lee Ah Yong against Hua Huat and its subtenants. While those proceedings were in progress, Lee Ah Yong passed away on 6 July 1987; the proceedings, so far as I am aware, are still pending - at any rate they were pending at the date of hearing of this motion. After the death of Lee Ah Yong, the plaintiff continued to pay the rent in respect of the premises to the then owners, and he claims that he continued to remain in occupation of a part of the premises. He petitioned for and was granted letters of administration to the estate of Lee Ah Yong, deceased. In April 1988 or thereabout, the plaintiff sublet a portion of the second floor of the premises to Choo Kok Jee (Pte) Ltd (Choo Kok Jee).

On 18 May 1989, the defendant purchased the premises from the owners, the trustees of Thian Yew Tong Temple, without vacant possession and subject to existing tenancy. One Lim Chwee Seng, the representative of the defendant, said that at the time of the purchase there were two subtenants in occupation of the premises; Hua Huat occupying the ground floor and Choo Kok Jee occupying the second floor, and no other person was in occupation. Soon after the completion of the purchase, the defendant negotiated with Hua Huat and Choo Kok Jee respectively, and as a result they quitted and delivered possession of the respective portion of the premises occupied by them to the defendant. The defendant, after taking possession of these portions of the premises, locked up the entrances to the ground floor and the second floor of the premises. The plaintiff thereupon instituted this action against the defendant claiming, inter alia, an injunction.

Clearly, at the date of the purchase of the premises by the defendant, there was subsisting a tenancy of the whole of the premises. That tenancy was granted to the late Lee Ah Yong during his lifetime by the trustees of Thian Yew Tong Temple, the predecessors in title of the defendant. On the death of Lee Ah Yong, the tenancy devolved on his personal representative, namely, the plaintiff in this action. The defendant, therefore, took the premises at the material time subject to this tenancy. She knew that there were two subtenants in occupation of the premises; she knew them as subtenants and negotiated with them, and must have ascertained from them and also from her predecessors in title who the chief tenant is.

The plaintiff`s claim is that he is the chief tenant of the whole of the premises; that Hua Huat and Choo Kok jee were his subtenants, and that at all material times he was, and still is, in occupation of a...