Lim Kim Yiang and Another v Foo Suan Seng and Others

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 29 June 1991
• Neutral Citation: [1991] SGHC 87
• Docket Number: District Court Appeal No 40 of
• Date: 29 June 1991
• Year: 1991
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Tan Kok Quan and Ng Yuen (Lee & Lee)
• Citation: [1991] SGHC 87
• Defendant Counsel: TQ Lim (TQ Lim & Co)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Contract,Whether a monthly tenancy or tenancy for life,Contractual terms,Claim for possession of premises,Stipulation in tenancy agreement that tenancy will be continued by lessee's sons in event of lessee's death or if she so assigns,Contra proferentem rule,Rules of construction,Whether monthly tenancy or tenancy for life,Rent control premises,Tenancy agreement,Construction of agreement,Renewal,Whether stipulation binding in event of lessee's death and sale of premises to appellants,Landlord and Tenant,Covenants,Control of Rent Act (Cap 58)

On 5 April 1973, a tenancy agreement was entered into by Mohd Kassim s/o Allapitchay, the then owner of the property in dispute and Mdm Chiang Juat Eng. This agreement is reproduced in full below:

Tenancy Agreement

It is agreed between the undersigned parties as follows:

(1) The landlord agrees to let to the tenant and the tenant agrees to be the tenant of the premises no 330-332, Serangoon Road, Singapore, previously rented to the tenant`s husband, Mr Foo Chee Wee.

(1a) It is understood that the premises no 330-332, Serangoon Road, Singapore, as stated in cl 1, always include both the ground and first floors - no 330-332 and 330A-332A.

(2) The rent shall be $263 per month, payable in the first week of each calender month.

(3) The tenancy is to run from month to month.

(4) The tenant shall be at liberty to assign, sublet or part with the possession of the premises or any part thereof.

(5) It is understood that the landlord undertakes no liability for repairs or renovation. The tenant shall not make any structural alterations without the written consent of the landlord.

Tenant`s signature:

(thumb print)

or right thumb print. Madam Chiang Juat Eng

(Mrs Foo Chee Wee)

I/C no: 0299556-E

Landlord`s signature: (signed)

Inche Mohd Kassim s/o Allapitchay

I/C no: 0900103-D

Singapore dated this 5th April, 1973.

This document will be referred to hereinafter as D2. On the next page, hereinafter referred to as D3, there are the following words:

The tenancy of the premises no 330-332, Serangoon Road, Singapore will be continued by the sons of Madam Chiang Juat Eng (Mrs Foo Chee Wee), on her death or if she so assigns.

Landlord`s signature: (signed)

Inche Mohd Kassim s/o Allapitchay

I/C no: 0900103-D

Singapore dated this 5th April, 1973.

On 30 January 1983, the appellants purchased the property from Mohd Kassim s/o Allapitchay. On 27 March 1984, the appellants served a notice to quit on Mdm Chiang. On 15 April 1986, Mdm Chiang died. The notice to quit is reproduced below:

AR REGISTERED

To:

Mrs Foo Chee Wee

48 Jalan Buloh Perindu

Singapore 1545

Notice To Quit

Re: Nos 330/330A/332 Serangoon Road, Singapore

As solicitors for Lim Kim Yiang, Chong Woon Leng and Ng Kim Lin, the owners of the above premises and your landlords, we are instructed to and do hereby give you notice to quit and deliver up to our clients vacant possession of the abovestated premises on 30 April 1984 or on the expiration of the month of your tenancy which will expire next after the end of one calendar month from the date of service of this notice.

Dated this 27th day of March,1984.

Sd: Wee & Tay

Solicitors for Lim Kim Yiang, Chong Woon Leng and Ng Kim Lin.

From the evidence of Foo Tiang Heng, the third respondent, none of the responever resided there. At the time of the trial, Foo Tiang Heng resided at Toa Payoh; Dr Foo Yong Chin (fourth respondent) resided at Namly Grove; and Foo Yong Eng (fifth respondent) resided at Jalan Ardat. Foo Suan Seng is the son of the third respondent and does not reside there.

Foo Suan Seng (first respondent) is the licensee of the eating house at the premises and is looking after the business. There are five stall holders operating in the premises. They pay a total of about $1,830 per month to the respondents. The ground floor of the premises had all along been used as business premises. The whole of the second floor is occupied by Siong Boey Express Ltd which pays a sum of $150 per month.

Action was begun in June 1988 when the appellants claimed the following relief: judgment against the respondents for possession of the premises; an order requiring the respondents and any others in occupation to quit and deliver up vacant possession of the premises to the appellants forthwith; an order for account against the respondents; mesne profits from 16 April 1986 until the date of delivery of possession of the premises; damages; costs; and such further or other relief.

At the date of trial on 31 July 1990, the ground floor of the premises was still used as business premises. The second floor above that continued to be sublet to Siong Boey Express Ltd. After the trial, the learned district judge ordered that the action be dismissed with costs. The appellants appealed and on 26 March 1991 I allowed the appeal with costs here and below. I now give my reasons.

The issue in the present case is the nature of the relationship between the appellants and respondents, in particular, whether it was a monthly tenancy or a tenancy for life. It is not in dispute that the Control of Rent Act (Cap 58) applies to the premises.

Counsel for the appellants submitted that it was a monthly tenancy and that D3 provided for the situation, if she should die or assign before the tenancy was terminated. The learned district judge was therefore wrong in holding that it was a life tenancy. The learned district judge first held it was a monthly tenancy, then later in his judgment said that it was a tenancy for life, thereafter for the joint lives of the sons; but did not give any reasons. Counsel for the appellants submitted that even D3 did not give a tenancy for life. In the court below, the respondents` counsel claimed an `implied term` that it was for life, when there was an express term that it was monthly tenancy. Counsel for the appellants referred to several rules of construction. In construction, all parts of a document must be given effect. ( Lewison on Interpretation of Contract paras 6.03, 6.06 and 6.07.) Terms will not be implied if inconsistent with express terms: express terms negative implied terms (para 6.06). Where there is doubt, the proper course is to construe against the party in whose favour the document has been made: Burton & Co v English & Co 1 (contra proferentem rule).

The appellants` counsel then dealt with cases cited by the respondents in the district court, beginning with Zimbler v Abrahams .2 In that case the action was brought to recover possession of a house. The defendant had been a weekly tenant of the house, and in October 1896, one Beron, as agent for the owners of the house, signed a document in the following terms:

London, Oct 5, 1896. I the undersigned, S Beron, have let to Mr Abrahams (the defendant) the house situate at 24 Morgan Street, Commercial Road, E, at a

...