Lim Kim Kee v Kin Aik Pte Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: T S Sinnathuray J
• Judgment Date: 20 July 1984
• Neutral Citation: [1984] SGHC 20
• Docket Number: District Court Appeal No 49 of 1982
• Date: 20 July 1984
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1984
• Plaintiff Counsel: Goh Joon Seng (Chan, Goh & Co)
• Citation: [1984] SGHC 20
• Defendant Counsel: Johua Lim (Lee & Lim)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Rent-controlled premises,Statutory tenancy,s 15(1)(g) Control of Rent Act (Cap 266),Landlord and Tenant,Creation of tenancy,Recovery of possession,Breach of statutory provisions

This appeal relates to the recovery of possession of a rent-controlled terraced house, No 40 Petain Road (the premises). The respondents bought the premises some eight years ago. At that time, the appellant was already a tenant of the premises at a monthly rent of $49.60 payable in advance.

After the respondents became the owners of the premises, they caused an investigation to be made on the occupants of the premises. It was discovered that one Mdm Choo and her son were living in the front room of the first floor. She was paying the appellant $40 per month inclusive of PUB charges.

The respondents then brought these proceedings against the appellant. They obtained judgment in the district court for possession of the premises on the ground that the appellant had committed a breach of the provision of s 15(1)(g) of the Control of Rent Act (Cap 266) (the Act). The provision reads as follows:

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;

At the hearing of the appeal, counsel for the appellant raised two submissions. First, he disputed the finding of fact of the learned district judge that the area occupied by Mdm Choo (including a canvas bed space on the ground floor where her son slept at night) was `a little more than one-eighth, certainly not more than one-fifth of the total area of the premises`. The other submission, which counsel said was not considered by the learned district judge, was that as Mdm Choo (and her son) had ceased to live in the premises before the respondents commenced these proceedings, the appellant was not in breach of s 15(1)(g) of the Act. Mdm Choo and her son left the premises in about August 1980; these proceedings were commenced against the appellant in September 1980.

I shall first deal with the second submission.

In support of his submission that even if there was a breach by the appellant, as the breach had ceased before the proceedings were brought, the respondents cannot sue on the breach, counsel for the appellant relied on the dictum of Barakbah CJ of Malaya in Che Esah & Anor v Che Limah [1966] 1 MLJ 36 . In delivering the judgment of the Federal Court, the learned Chief Justice at p 37 said: `In my view, therefore, as the law applicable was the law as it existed at the date of the hearing, and as the tenancy was then protected by the provisions of the Control of Rent Ordinance 1956, no order for possession could be made`. The issue in that appeal was whether a widow of a tenant of a rent-controlled house who had remarried and left the place but had later returned to live in it...