Re Tan Tye (deceased)

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choor Singh J
• Judgment Date: 06 June 1969
• Neutral Citation: [1969] SGHC 7
• Citation: [1969] SGHC 7
• Date: 06 June 1969
• Year: 1969
• Plaintiff Counsel: NA Mallal and YR Jumabhoy (Mallal & Namazie)
• Docket Number: Suit No 2044 of 1964
• Defendant Counsel: G Starforth Hill and P Selvadurai (Rodyk & Davidson)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 19 September 2003

In this suit, the plaintiffs who are the present trustees of the will and estate of the abovenamed Tan Tye deceased, claim a declaration that the defendants, who were the former trustees of the said estate, are liable to make good to the estate of the said deceased all loss which the estate has suffered by reason of the wilful neglect or breach of trust on the part of the defendants and they also claim certain other consequential orders.

The facts are these. The plaintiffs are and have been since 24 February 1961 the sole trustee of the trusts of the will of the abovenamed Tan Tye deceased which trusts are hereinafter called `the said trusts`. The defendants are professional trustees and were at all material times up to 24 February 1961 the sole trustee of the said trusts.

At all material times the property subject to the said trusts included two pieces of land in Singapore known as Lots 354-4 and 356-1 of Mukim XXV which had been let by an indenture of lease dated 5 August 1936 for a term to expire on 31 May 1957. By an indenture of assignment dated 2 October 1936 the lessee assigned the entire residue of the term created by the said lease to Happy World Ltd (hereinafter called the tenant). The rent reserved by the said indenture of lease in respect of the said two pieces of land was as follows:

(1) $100 monthly during the first ten months of the said term.

(2) $450 monthly during the year next following the first ten months of the said term.

(3) $500 monthly during the four years next following.

(4) $600 monthly during the five years next following.

(5) $700 monthly during the five years next following; and

(6) $800 monthly during the last five years of the said lease.

Under the terms of the said lease the tenant was permitted to erect buildings on the said land so as to enable him to carry on the business of an amusement park and it was provided that at the determination of the said term the tenant would peaceably and quietly leave, surrender and yield up unto the lessors the said lands with all buildings and structures thereon. The tenant erected on the said two pieces of land or caused to be erected thereon by the sub-tenants thereof numerous buildings and structures such as restaurants, cinemas, a stadium, a dance-hall and other structures such as are commonly found in amusement parks and it is alleged by the plaintiffs that at the date of the expiry of the said term on 31 May 1957 the tenant was in receipt of approximately $30,000 a month as rent derived from the said buildings and structures, apart from income from the use of the stadium. The said amusement park was commonly known as `Happy World Amusement Park` and I shall hereafter refer to the said lands with the buildings thereon as `the said lands`.

The tenant instituted proceedings in 1955 against the abovenamed defendants, being Suit No 989 of 1955 [see [1958] MLJ 155 ], claiming:

(1) a declaration that the said lands and the buildings thereon constituted `premises` within the definition of that word in the Control of Rent Ordinance 1953;

(2) a declaration that the defendants had never at any time been entitled to recover a higher rent in respect of the said premises other than the standard rent; and

(3) an order that the defendants do refund to the tenant all such sums which the tenant had paid the defendants as trustees of the estate of the testator in excess of the said standard rent.

During the course of the said proceedings one Tan Lian Chye, a beneficiary of the estate of the abovenamed Tan Tye deceased was added as a defendant. Both the defendants in the said proceedings counterclaimed for possession of the said lands on a number of grounds one of them being that the tenant had sublet a part of the said lands and premises and received in respect of such subletting rents which exceeded in the aggregate 110% of the recoverable rent paid by the tenant, who, it was alleged was therefore in breach of s 15(1) (g) of the Control of Rent Ordinance 1953. At the hearing of the said suit the defendants by their counsel informed the court that they would press their counterclaim only if the plaintiffs were successful on their claim and accordingly it was agreed by and between the parties and the court that the counterclaim would be heard after the decision on the plaintiffs` claim....