Ong Beng Chong v Goh Kim Thong
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Chan Seng Onn J |
Judgment Date | 07 July 2010 |
Neutral Citation | [2010] SGHC 195 |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Docket Number | Originating Summons No 140 of 2010 |
Published date | 29 July 2010 |
Year | 2010 |
Hearing Date | 17 May 2010,23 March 2010 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Tan Bar Tien (B T Tan & Partners) |
Defendant Counsel | The defendant in person. |
Subject Matter | Landlord and Tenant |
Citation | [2010] SGHC 195 |
This was a dispute concerning the recovery of a house without a land title by the landowner.
Sometime in 1959, Ng Chwee Kim was permitted to erect a single storey terrace house known as No 24 Meng Suan Road Singapore 779225 (the “house”) on part of a piece of land of 1957.1 sq m with a 999 years leasehold tenure known as Lot 550P of Mukim 13 (the “land”). The plaintiff, Ong Beng Chong, is presently the registered proprietor of the land. The house is one of the units in a row of 9 terrace houses (Nos 20 to 28 Meng Suan Road Singapore) built on the land.
By way of a deed of assignment dated 16 March 1983, the defendant, Goh Kim Thong, and his wife Lee Kui Want (assignees) bought the 24 year old house (without the land) for a mere $10,000 from the then ground tenants of the land, Koh Kar Gat and Lee Yong Pow (assignors). The assignment itself stated that the house had been erected on the land owned by the plaintiff (and some predecessors in title of the plaintiff). The defendant continued with the payment of ground rent to the plaintiff as the landlord. The defendant recognised that the plaintiff is the owner of the land on which the defendant’s house sits.
The defendant argued that he had not been in arrears in paying the ground rent (and any arrears was in fact due to the plaintiff’s refusal to accept his payment) and that he had not breached the agreement dated 25 July 1959 whereby (a) Lian Aik Building & Company was authorised by Ng Chwee Kim to construct the house on the land at the agreed price of $6,500; and (b) it was agreed that the “land rental of seven dollars per month is to be directly collected by the landlord from the owner of the house”. Based on this agreement, the defendant contended that so long as he paid the ground rent of $7 per month, he was entitled to squat on the land until the 999 years lease runs out in the year 2883.
Notice to QuitOn 30 October 2009, the plaintiff served a Notice to Quit on the defendant, giving him a month’s notice. The plaintiff regarded the defendant as a month to month tenant paying a monthly ground rent to him. On 30 November 2009, the plaintiff determined the defendant’s ground tenancy and required the defendant to deliver up vacant possession of the house. The defendant refused the offer of compensation of $225,000 from the plaintiff and demanded instead $1.8 million to $2 million dollars before he would vacate the house. As the plaintiff considered the sum demanded to be unreasonable, the plaintiff took up this originating summons requiring the defendant to deliver up vacant possession and pay the outstanding monthly ground rent.
The legal position The legal position with respect to recovery of possession in such cases is clear. In
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Low Heng Leon Andy v Low Kian Beng Lawrence
...34 (refd) Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v MSCT Plan No 301 [2005] 3 SLR (R) 157; [2005] 3 SLR 157 (folld) Ong Beng Chong v Goh Kim Thong [2010] SGHC 195 (folld) Osprey, The [1999] 3 SLR (R) 1099; [2000] 1 SLR 281 (folld) Sledmore v Dalby (1996) 72 P & CR 196 (folld) Tan Chui Lian v Neo Liew E......
-
Low Heng Leon Andy v Low Kian Beng Lawrence (administrator of the estate of Tan Ah Kng, deceased)
...An O 81 application is for summary proceedings for possession of land. As held by Chan Seng Onn J in Ong Beng Chong v Goh Kim Thong [2010] SGHC 195 (“Ong Beng Chong”) (at [6]), “[t]he legal position with respect to recovery of possession in such cases is clear.” Chan J referred to two cases......
-
Ong Beng Chong v Commissioner of Stamp Duties
...had an equity that must be satisfied before the Appellant can recover vacant possession of his Land (see Ong Beng Chong v Goh Kim Thong [2010] SGHC 195 (“Goh Kim Thong”) at [7] and Ong Beng Chong v Jayaram Victoria and another matter (“Jayaram Victoria”) [2009] SGHC 66 at [37]–[40]). In rel......
-
Land Law
...result, the claim of the plaintiff was allowed and the counterclaim of the defendant dismissed. 19.15 In Ong Beng Chong v Goh Kim Thong [2010] SGHC 195 (‘Ong Beng Chong’), a dispute concerning the recovery of a house without a land title by the landowner was considered. The plaintiff was th......