Rose Binte Abdullah @ Seah Jane v Nah Seng Kiat and Another
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judge | Kathryn Low Lye Fong |
| Judgment Date | 07 March 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | [2007] SGMC 8 |
| Court | Magistrates' Court (Singapore) |
| Year | 2007 |
| Published date | 21 March 2007 |
| Plaintiff Counsel | Mohd Sadique Bin Ibrahim Marican and Anand Kumar (Sadique Marican & ZM Amin) |
| Defendant Counsel | Alice Yeo (Alice Yeo & Co) |
| Citation | [2007] SGMC 8 |
| 7 March 2007 |
|
District Judge Low Lye Fong Kathryn
Background
1 The plaintiff Rose Binte Abdullah @ Seah Jane claimed that the defendants Nah Seng Kiat and Chian Poh Kim had leased the premises at Block 146, Teck Whye Avenue #01-173, Singapore (the “premises”) to her by an oral lease from month to month from 2 September 2001. According to her, the rent was set at $600 per month at the end of 2003 and it was an implied condition of the lease that she should be allowed to peaceably hold, use and occupy the premises.
2 She claimed that the defendants had on 13 January 2004 during the currency of the lease, entered into the premises, evicted her and removed her machineries, goods and other items without proper notice in breach of the lease. The items were left behind the premises and some were lost or missing. She particularised the lost or missing items as follows:
a) stainless steel rack $2,800;
b) metal rack $ 140;
c) stainless steel table $ 500; and
d) raw materials $8,000.
She also claimed that by placing her machineries at the rear of the premises and leaving them exposed to the elements, her coconut milk machine and a 2-door chiller were damaged and she had suffered damages amounting to $16,000 and $2,800 respectively.
3 She claimed that the defendants have trespassed and wrongfully deprived her of her stock-in-trade, goods and effects and prevented her from carrying on her business as a grocer and deprived her of profits. She had thereby suffered loss of income in the sum of $300 for each week day and $1,000 on week ends. She also claimed damages for anguish and stress caused by the humiliation that she suffered as a result of the defendants’ act of removing her belongings to the rear of the premises.
4 The defendants denied that the premises were let to the plaintiff. They had only leased the open space at the front portion of the premises (the “stall”) to the plaintiff by an oral agreement and the terms of the lease were varied with the mutual consent of both parties from time to time. They alleged that contrary to the terms of the lease, the plaintiff did not attend to the stall personally and left it to her maid to do so, despite their requests for her not to. The plaintiff had informed them some time in mid-2002, that she could not afford to pay the monthly rent and requested that the lease be converted to a day-to-day lease at the daily rent of $50. The arrangement continued until 2003, when the plaintiff informed them that she wished to terminate the lease as she could not afford the daily rent of $50.
5 The parties then agreed that the plaintiff would lease the stall from the defendants on a day-to-day basis at a reduced daily rent of $20, until the defendants found a replacement tenant and notified the plaintiff to vacate the stall. They claimed that they informed the plaintiff that they had found a replacement tenant and notified her to vacate the stall some time in early December 2003. On 27 December 2003, the defendants again gave the plaintiff notice to vacate the stall by 11 January 2004. However, the plaintiff failed to do so and the defendants requested police assistance to compel the plaintiff to vacate the stall on 12 January 2004. Again the plaintiff refused to vacate the stall. The defendants then notified the plaintiff on the evening of 12 January 2004 that they would be engaging professional movers to move her belongings to the rear of the premises. The plaintiff’s belongings were then packed and moved to the rear of the premises.
6 The defendants denied that they have breached any term of the lease. They also denied that the plaintiff had suffered the loss alleged. Further, any loss or damage to the plaintiff’s belongings was a result of her own conduct in opening up the wrapping done by the movers and leaving the items exposed and unattended. They claimed that the plaintiff had ceased to pay the rent from 27 December 2003 and counterclaimed arrears of rent in the sum of $340, at $20 per day from 27 December 2003 to 12 January 2004. They also claimed that as a result of the plaintiff’s failure to deposit her refuse in a refuse bin, they were issued with summonses by the National Environment Agency on two occasions and had paid the fines amounting to $200. They further claimed the costs of engaging professional movers to move the plaintiff’s belongings at $250 and loss of income suffered as a result of attending to the matters relating to the lease at $500 per day.
7 The plaintiff denied the defendants’ allegations and stated that her domestic maid accompanied her when she was at the stall. She claimed that it was the 1st defendant who had persuaded her to remain as a tenant and reduced the rent to $20 per day. She also denied that she had agreed to the defendants obtaining an alternative tenant for the stall. She claimed that the rent was reduced solely because the defendants wanted her to remain as a tenant and denied that she had agreed to vacate the premises. After the rent was reduced, she had stocked up on goods for the Chinese New Year. She denied that the defendants were entitled to their counterclaim and claimed that she had paid rent up to 12 January 2004.
8 At the end of the three-day trial, I took time to consider the written submissions of counsel. I entered judgement for the plaintiff in the sum of $5,000 with interests thereon and judgment for the defendants in the sum of $250 with interests thereon in respect of the counterclaim. I also awarded costs to the plaintiff fixed at $ 4,000 plus reasonable disbursements to be taxed, if not agreed. I had given my brief findings when judgment was delivered and now set out my grounds of decision.
The plaintiff’s case
The evidence of the Rose Binte Abdullah @ Seah Jane, PW1
9 Rose Binte Abdullah @ Seah Jane, PW1 is the plaintiff in the action. She claimed that by an oral lease made in September 2001, the defendants had leased the premises known as Blk 146 Teck Whye Ave #01-173 to her on a month to month basis from 2 September 2001. Her evidence in court was that she had rented an area at the front of the defendants’ premises to run a provisions stall since 1999. It was not disputed that the parties did not sign a written tenancy agreement but she denied that she had refused to sign one when asked to do so by the defendant. She stated in re-examination that the 1st defendant had told her that she did not need a written agreement as she could trust him. She claimed that as at December 2003, the rent was set at $600 per month. She confirmed that the rent was agreed at $1,500 per month when she first leased the stall and she had paid a deposit of $1,500 at the time. However, the deposit had since been utilised by the defendants for arrears of rent that was due. She subsequently paid the defendants a sum of $50 on a daily basis but denied that the arrangement for daily payment was made at her request. She agreed that the arrangement meant that she paid the defendants a larger sum in some months and a smaller sum in others. The sum was later further reduced to $20 per day.
10 She denied that she had wanted to terminate the tenancy and asserted instead, that the defendants had asked her to continue to stay as a tenant as she pleased. She claimed that the defendants had reduced the rent to $20 per day as they wanted her to continue with the tenancy when she wanted to move to another stall which is three units away. She denied that the 1st defendant had told her in December 2003 that they have found someone to take over the stall and asked her to leave before Christmas. She also denied that the 2nd defendant had told her again on 27 December 2003 to vacate the stall by 11 January 2004.
11 Under cross-examination, she confirmed that she was at the stall on 12 January 2004 when the defendants asked her to vacate the stall and admitted that the police had asked her to do so when the defendants called them for assistance. Her evidence was that the 1st defendant had only told her to move out of the premises for the first time on 10 January 2004. She did not agree to do so and said that she needed one month’s notice. She admitted that the 1st defendant had telephoned her on the night of 12 January 2004, and informed her that her belongings had been moved to the rear of the premises. However, she did not go to the premises that night as she was tired and felt that the defendants should be responsible since they had removed her belongings. Further, she would not have been able to remove the items on that night. She denied that she had removed the piece of canvas sheet that was placed over the items when she took the photographs in the Plaintiff’s bundle of documents on 13 January 2004 at PBD4 to PBD10. She claimed that she had removed some of the items on 14 and 15 January 2004 and the remaining items on 29 January 2004.
12 Her case was that on 13 January 2004 during the currency of the lease, the defendants had entered the stall and evicted her and removed her machineries, goods and other items without notice or proper notice in breach of the tenancy. The defendants left her belongings at the rear of the premises and by reason thereof, several items, being a stainless steel rack, metal rack, stainless steel table and raw materials were lost. Although she had pleaded in the statement of claim that the value of the raw materials that were lost or missing amounted to $8,000, she claimed that they amounted to $34,000 in her affidavit of evidence-in-chief. She explained that she had done a re-calculation but did not offer any documentary evidence as regards the value of the items to substantiate her claim.
13 She also stated in her affidavit that her coconut milk machine, a 2-door chiller, a chest freezer and 2 units of coconut grinder were damaged by reason of having been exposed to the elements. She claimed that the damage to the coconut milk machine costs $4,675 to repair and referred to an invoice exhibited at BA15....
To continue reading
Request your trial