Kim Teng Realty Pte Ltd v Ooi Hoe San trading as Seng Bee Rubber Co

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lai Kew Chai J
• Judgment Date: 25 May 1984
• Neutral Citation: [1984] SGCA 18
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 85 of 1982
• Date: 25 May 1984
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1984
• Plaintiff Counsel: Tan Chin Tiong (Wee Swee Teoh & Co)
• Citation: [1984] SGCA 18
• Defendant Counsel: P Suppiah (P Suppiah & Co)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Rent-controlled premises,Conditions,Rent of subletting in excess of 110% of recoverable rent paid by tenant,Creation of tenancy,Covenants,Landlord and Tenant,Breach by tenant of rent-controlled premises,Whether premises recoverable by landlord,User,ss 15(1)(g) & 27 Control of Rent Act (Cap 266),Whether sub-tenant a statutory tenant,Statutory tenancy

The appellants are the owners of the premises, 327, Beach Road, Singapore (the said premises) which they purchased in 1972 and which are premises within the meaning of the Control of Rent Act (Cap 266) (the Act). Prior to the purchase by the appellants the said premises were let out to one, Ng Hiang Liat, who in turn by a tenancy agreement in Chinese dated 1 September 1970 (exh D1C) sub-let the whole of the said premises to the partnership firm, Seng Bee Rubber Co, of which the respondent was one of the partners, for a term of three years from 1 October 1970 to 30 September 1973. Soon after the purchase of the said premises, the appellants duly served on Ng Hiang Liat a notice to quit dated 26 October 1972 determining his tenancy of the said premises on 30 November 1972. Since then no further step or action appeared to have been taken by the appellants in respect of the said premises until August 1979. In the meanwhile three further agreements in Chinese dated 1 October 1973, 1 October 1974 and 1 October 1976 respectively (exhs D1D, D1E and D1F) relating to the letting of the said premises were made between Ng Hiang Liat and Seng Bee Rubber Co covering three successive periods respectively, namely: 1 October 1973 to 30 September 1974, 1 October 1974 to 30 September 1976 and 1 October 1976 to 30 September 1979. These agreements were couched in a form slightly different from that of the first agreement (exh D1C), but in substance they were intended by the parties thereto as tenancy agreements of the said premises though, for reasons which we give hereunder, they did not operate as such in law. On 30 August 1975 the respondent`s partners retired from the partnership firm and he became the sole proprietor of the business conducted under the same name or style of Seng Bee Rubber Co. In August 1979 or thereabout the appellants enquired from Ng Hiang Liat particulars of any sub-letting of the said premises. Enquiry was also made by the appellants with the re spondent as to the right of the respondent in the said premises. On 6 September 1979 the appellants served on Ng Hiang Liat a second notice to quit expressed to determine his tenancy of the said premises on 31 October 1979. Soon thereafter the appellants instituted proceedings in the district court against Ng Hiang Liat and the respondent claiming for possession of the said premises and mesne profits.

Originally the appellants in their statement of claim sought to recover possession of the said premises against Ng Hiang Liat on the ground that he was not a statutory tenant under s 27(a) of the Act and against the respondent on the ground that he was in unlawful occupation of the said premises. In the course of the trial before the district judge evidence came to light that Ng Hiang Liat had been receiving rent from the respondent in excess of 110% of the recoverable rent paid by Ng Hiang Liat to the appellants. Thereupon the appellants with leave of the court amended the statement of claim by adding a further and alternative ground for recovery of possession under s 15(1)(g) of the Act, ie that Ng Hiang Liat had sub-let the said premises to the respondent and had received rents in respect of such sub-letting in excess of 110% of the recoverable rent paid by Ng Hiang Liat.

The district judge, on the evidence before him, found that the ground for recovery of possession of the said premises from Ng Hiang Liat under s 15(1)(g) was made out. He gave judgment for the appellants against Ng Hiang Liat for possession and for payment of mesne profits in the sum of $163.20 per month from 31 October 1979 and costs. As against the respondent the district judge found that no sub-tenancy to the respondent was created by Ng Hiang Liat and vis-a-vis the appellants the...