Narayanan v MB Vellayappa Chettiar

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lai Kew Chai J
• Judgment Date: 14 November 1984
• Neutral Citation: [1984] SGHC 38
• Docket Number: Suit No 3630 of 1981
• Date: 14 November 1984
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1984
• Plaintiff Counsel: JB Jeyaretnam (JB Jeyaretnam & Co)
• Citation: [1984] SGHC 38
• Defendant Counsel: Kan Ting Chiu (Hilborne & Co)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Notice to quit served on Chief Justice,Whether tenancy with estate of deceased's son,Deceased tenant's son carried on business in premises,Landlord and Tenant,Creation of tenancy,Death of original tenant

In this action, the plaintiff is asking for a declaration that he was and is at all material times the tenant of a zinc-roofed and wooden shop known as No 29 Tank Road, Singapore (the shop). He also asks for a mandatory injunction that the defendant do rebuild the shop which the defendant had unlawfully demolished in September 1981 and for an injunction restraining the defendant, inter alia , from interfering with his quiet enjoyment. Alternatively, and as a last resort, he is asking for compensatory and punitive damages against the defendant for depriving him of his rent-controlled tenancy of the shop by demolishing it and making it impossible for the plaintiff to be reinstated in the shop.

The defendant is sued as a trustee of the Thandayuthapani Temple also known as the Chettiar`s Temple, at Tank Road, Singapore, a charitable trust, on whose land was erected the shop.

I will now set out the facts which have not been in controversy over the first two days of the trial. The plaintiff`s father, one Suppiah Kalyanasundram, became a tenant of the shop before the Second World War. He paid, for example, $20 rent per month for January and February 1943 by way of deposit: see exh AB1. He sold cigarettes, soft drinks and certain temple artifacts. Some, if not all, of his five sons, including the plaintiff, who is the eldest, grew up in the shop. The plaintiff`s brother, Subramanian s/o Kalyanasundram, who was the second witness for the plaintiff, used to run the shop. So did the first witness for the plaintiff, Shanmuggam s/o Kalyanasundram.

The shop was a zinc-roofed plank shop standing in front of the temple.

In December 1969 the plaintiff`s father died. Some of the trustees of the temple knew of his death and had, in fact, attended the funeral. Some 20 days after the father`s death, the shop was reopened for business as usual.

After the death of the plaintiff`s father, the yearly trustee for the time being of the temple collected rent at the rate of $25 per month as rent and $8 per month for the water and electricity supplies. Rent receipts were issued in the name of the late father of the plaintiff.

This state of affairs continued for some nine years. During this period, the plaintiff was the registered proprietor of the business of the shop, having commenced his business in December 1970 as the sole proprietor. He did not run the business. He was working as a watchman in a school nearby. Subramanian s/o Kalyanasundram ran the shop until he became a full time cleaner for the Housing and Development Board in about 1978 or 1979, after which he helped to run the shop in the evenings. The only other event worth mentioning is that in 1974 the plaintiff had at the request of the then trustee of the temple renovated the shop at the cost of about $5,000.

In about 1979 the temple decided to carry out extensive renovations to the temple. The redevelopment of the temple involved the demolition of the shop which was obviously the fly in the ointment. The electricity supply was disconnected in the course of the renovation works. The temple ceased collecting rent from the plaintiff as from May 1979.

The temple took the view that the tenancy had continued in the estate of the deceased. Since no administration order was taken out to administer the estate, the temple caused a notice to quit to be served on the learned Chief Justice in the usual way. The notice to quit required vacant possession to be given by the end of April 1981. Seeing that no vacant possession was given, the officers of the Temple on 29 September 1981 caused the shop to be demolished. The items remaining in the shop, which were preserved after the demolition by a firm of auctioneers, were all of a non-trading nature. The plaintiff recovered his identity card and a cheque but he said that he had lost his cash of $316 which he had left in the shop. The demolition had taken place in spite of very clear warning by the solicitors of the plaintiff to the solicitors of the defendant that the defendant should not take the law into his own hands. These proceedings were thereafter commenced against the defendants.

The main issue of fact for my determination is whether, as the Plaintiff alleges, he in his personal capacity became a tenant of the shop in and as from February 1970 or whether, as the defendant alleges, the tenancy had remained with the estate of the father of the plaintiff with the result that the tenancy was lawfully determined by the said notice to quit and that the plaintiff was a trespasser of the shop.

I will now consider and evaluate the evidence given by and on behalf of both parties. The plaintiff in his evidence said that after his father`s death, he and his brothers and mother discussed the continuation of the business in the shop. As he was the eldest, it was agreed by all of them that he could take over the business and the tenancy of the shop. Pursuant to the agreement, he approached the temple authority. In February 1970 he and his brother, Thangavellu s/o Kalyanasundram (PW2), called on the then trustee of the temple, one Karuppan Chettiar. He asked the trustee to allow him to carry on the business in the...