Ong Beng Chong v Jayaram Victoria and Another Matter

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lai Siu Chiu J
• Judgment Date: 24 March 2009
• Neutral Citation: [2009] SGHC 66
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 01 April 2009
• Citation: [2009] SGHC 66
• Plaintiff Counsel: Tan Bar Tien and Winston Quek (BT Tan & Company)
• Defendant Counsel: Ian Lim Wei Loong and Tan Sin Cheng (TSMP Law Corporation)
• Subject Matter: Land,Equity
• Year: 2009

24 March 2009

Lai Siu Chiu J:

1 In these consolidated proceedings, Ong Beng Chong (“the plaintiff”) attempted to evict Yeo Ang Moo (“the first defendant”) and Victoria Jayaram (“the second defendant”) respectively from properties known as Nos. 21 and 23 Meng Suan Road, Singapore (“the first house” and “the second house” respectively and collectively “the two houses”). The plaintiff sued for vacant possession of the first house from the first defendant in Originating Summons No. 832 of 2008 and for vacant possession of the second house from the second defendant in Originating Summons No. 831 of 2008 ( collectively “the two OS”).

2 At the conclusion of the hearing, I dismissed the two OS with costs to the defendants. The plaintiff has now appealed against my decision in Civil Appeal No. 165 of 2008.

The facts

3 The undisputed facts are fairly straightforward. They are extracted from the two affidavits filed by each of the defendants. The two houses were two of nine terrace houses situated on a plot of land known as Lot 550P of Mukim 13 and are numbered from 20 to 28.

4 According to the first defendant’s first affidavit, he had purchased the first house from Lian Yi Construction Company (“Lian Yi”) for a consideration of $5,200 under a contract dated 29 September 1959 (“the contract”). The contract, in Chinese, translated into English, reads:

Lian Yi Construction Company, having been appointed by Mr Yeo Ang [Moo] to construct one unit of residential house at House No. 21, Row 1, Lot No. 21-4, Wan Lee Road, hereby explicitly states that the price for each unit is five thousand two hundred dollars only. One unit in the sum of five thousand two hundred dollars only is booked in advance. A deposit of $0 is paid in advance and the balance of five thousand two hundred dollars only shall be paid on 29 September 1959. All deposit shall be forfeited if payment is not settled in full as scheduled. [It is] also hereby stated that the ground rent of seven dollars per month per unit shall be collected directly by the landowner from the house owner. The parties have no objections of the terms and this agreement is hereby made in two copies with each party holding a copy as proof.

5 At the material time, the plaintiff’s father (who has since passed away) Ong Tiau Seng (“Ong”) and his partners owned Lian Yi. The first defendant claimed he was told by Ong that the consideration of $5,200 he paid for the first house was a special price to the first defendant as the latter was buying the house with two friends who each bought one unit. The first defendant was unable to buy the land on which the first house stood for the reason that the same was not and is not to-date, subdivided. According to one of the plaintiff’s affidavits, Lian Yi purchased building materials from Ong’s company called Chip Hup Hin Timber Merchant to construct the terrace houses.

6 The first defendant claimed that he bought the first house on the understanding and expectation that he and his successors would be able to stay at the first house for the remaining duration of the lease (924 years as at 1959) that Ong and his successors held over the land on which all the nine houses stood.

7 In the case of the second defendant, it was her father Sundaram Jayaram (“Sundaram”) who purchased the second house for $5,900 on 3 October 1959 not from Lian Yi but from one Oh Guam Seng or one Oh Kim Seng (according to the plaintiff). Sundaram passed away on 4 August 1981 and he bequeathed the second house to the second defendant.

8 The second defendant deposed that in regard to house No. 22 Meng Suan Road (“the third house”) one V G Menon (“Menon”) bought it from Ong by a contract in the English language dated 1 January 1961 which reads as follows:

I, the undersigned ONG TIAU SENG (i/c SBBB No. 04929) the owner of the premises situated at No. 22 Meng Suan Road, Singapore, 26 hereby acknowledge that I have on this day, the 1^st January, 1961 sold the aforesaid premises (excluding the ground where the said premises stand) to Mr. V. G. Menon (i/c Z000 no. 06273) for the total sum of $6,300.00 (Six thousand and three hundred dollars only), the receipt of which has been duly acknowledged.

I further admit that neither I nor my beneficiaries shall have the right whatsoever to claim the said premises after the date of sale of the said premises.

9 The second defendant also deposed that the owner of No. 24 Meng Suan Road viz Huang Shui Jin, had purchased it for $6,500 from Ong.

10 It was the defendants’ contention that a sum of $6,000 would have bought an equivalent terrace house in other parts of Singapore in 1959, and must have been at or very close to the price that would have bought the first and second houses outright. The second defendant explained that her father did not buy the second house outright probably because the land was not at the time (and even now) subdivided.

11 The purchasers (including the defendants) of all the houses paid a ground rent of $7 per month or $84 per year, first to Ong and later (after his demise) to the plaintiff. Over the years, the plaintiff’s family increased the ground rent, initially to $15 in 1976 and later to $20 in 1981. Although the house owners did not agree to the increase, they paid up so as not to be difficult. However, the plaintiff’s family refused to accept payment of ground rent from the defendants after the plaintiff’s solicitors served notices to quit (see [20]) on the defendants. In the case of the first defendant, he paid ground rent for the period 2006 to 2008 by a cheque dated 18 July 2008 for $720 posted to the plaintiff’s solicitors. By a letter dated 16 July 2008, the second defendant also tendered to the plaintiff’s solicitors ground rent from 2003 to 2008 in the sum of $1,440. Both defendants’ cheques were returned to their solicitors by the plaintiff’s solicitors on 25 September 2008.

12 The first defendant deposed he had renovated the first house over the years. In the 1970s, it was twice renovated at around $7,200 (tiling of the floor, plastering of the walls and replacement of bucket sewage system by flush system), then in the 1980s for $4,000 (roofing of the courtyard, roof gutters and rain covers), in the 1990s for around $2,000 (replacement of electric wiring, switches and power meters) and $3,000 (replacement of roof structures and installation of iron gates).

13 In the case of the second defendant, the second house was first renovated between 1976 and 1978 for about $7,790, then again in 2001 ($12,250), in 2002 ($1,650) and finally in 2007 ($6,100). She produced repair bills and a letter to the income tax authorities to support her statements.

14 Both houses have been rented out over the years. In the case of the first defendant (save for the period 1994 to 1995 when his son lived there), he rented out the first house previously at $1,200 and currently, he obtains rent of $800 per month on a month-to-month tenancy.

15 Similarly, the second defendant has been renting out the second house and currently, she receives rental of $1,600 per month on a two year tenancy that will expire on 31 May 2009.

16 Both defendants revealed that the plaintiff had attempted to recover vacant possession of both houses in 2007. They received letters dated 19 September 2007 from the plaintiff’s (previous) solicitors K & Co indicating the plaintiff was prepared to pay reasonable compensation for the two houses. The first defendant was not interested and did not bother to contact K & Co as the latter had requested. The second defendant met the plaintiff at K & Co’s office but there was no concrete outcome from the meeting.

17 On 8 January 2008, there was an article in the Straits Times (“the newspaper”) titled “Two landed sites to go on sale with tenancies” (exhibited as VJ-6 in the second defendant’s first affidavit). The newspaper reported that the land with existing houses would be auctioned on 30 January 2008 by Colliers International Singapore (‘Colliers”) with an indicative price of $5.3m together with another piece of land along Meng Suan Road for $7.8m.

18 The first defendant’s son informed Colliers that his father was the rightful owner of the first house and the auction was called off.

19 K & Co wrote to all the house owners (including the defendants) on 25 March 2008 offering compensation of $30,000 for each house. All nine house owners jointly replied to K & Co on 19 April 2008 rejecting the offer. Separately, the first defendant’s son wrote to K & Co on 31 March 2008 explaining in detail how the first house came to be acquired from Ong and he counter-proposed paying the plaintiff $84,000 for all future ground rent payable to the latter. Subsequently, K & Co discharged themselves from acting for the plaintiff.

20 On 30 April 2008, the plaintiff’s current solicitors served the defendants and the other seven house owners with Notices to Quit expiring on 31 May 2008, stating their ground tenancies had been terminated and offering to pay them reasonable compensation for recovery of vacant possession. Although the first defendant’s son proposed on the house owners’ behalf, a meeting with the plaintiff’s solicitors to try to resolve the matter in the spirit of good faith, his attempt was rebuffed. Both OS were then issued on 20 June 2008.

21 After the issuance of the two OS, the defendants commissioned Knight Frank Pte Ltd (“Knight Frank”) to do a valuation on 8 September 2008 of the second house (see exhibit VJ-8 of the second defendant’s first affidavit). Knight Frank was tasked to advise on the following points:

(a) The worth today, in real money terms (assuming investing in Singapore property) of the purchase price of the terrace house of $5,900 in 1959; and

(b) the current undepreciated and depreciated building values.

22 Knight Frank advised as follows:

(a) it would have been difficult for a purchaser to find an equivalent terrace house in the vicinity of Meng Suan Road for $5,900 in 1959 (on the...