Teo Ee Hup v Syed Hussain Alkaff

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: A P Rajah J
• Judgment Date: 10 March 1982
• Neutral Citation: [1982] SGHC 10
• Docket Number: District Court Appeal No 27 of
• Date: 10 March 1982
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1982
• Plaintiff Counsel: JB Jeyaretnam (JB Jeyaretnam & Co)
• Citation: [1982] SGHC 10
• Defendant Counsel: Kirpal Singh (Kirpal Singh & Co)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether reasonable to allow order for possession,ss 3, 5 & 15(1)(b) Control of Rent Act (Cap 266),Rent collected according to Muslim calendar,Excess rent collected,Illegality,Rent-controlled premises,Collection of rent,Landlord and Tenant,Termination of leases,Tenant sub-letting premises,Rent and service charges,Muslim calendar and Gregorian Calendar distinguished,Rent permitted to be increased according to Gregorian calendar,Landlords themselves in breach of provisions of Control of Rent Act

In District Court Summons No 5601 of 1978 the plaintiffs, as trustees of the 1898 Alkaff Settlement claimed possession of 191 Beach Road (the premises) as against the first defendant on the ground that he was in breach of a condition of his tenancy not to sub-let and as against the other four defendants on the ground that their occupation as sub-tenants was unlawful for the reason that there was a condition against sub-letting. Alternatively, the plaintiffs sought possession against the first defendant under s 15(1)(g) of the Control of Rent Act (Cap 266) (the Act), that is to say he was collecting rents from his sub-tenants in excess of the permitted maximum. On 9 December 1978 on the return day of the summons, judgment was entered for the plaintiffs against the second and fourth defendants when they failed to appear. At the commencement of the trial on 26 November 1979 the claim against the third and fifth defendants were withdrawn with the leave of the court, leaving the first defendant as sole defendant at the trial.

It was not in dispute:

(1) that the premises were subject to the provisions of the Act;

(2) that the first defendant was in possession of the premises under a tenancy agreement, dated 29 January 1966 (exh P2, `the agreement`), according to Mohamedan calendar at the monthly rent of $224.40;

(3) that cl (b) thereof prohibits sub-letting without the landlord`s consent; and

(4) that in Rent Board Application No 33 of 1974 the rent of the premises was increased under the provisions of the Act, which included the serving of a notice to quit dated 20 December 1973 (the first notice) as required under s 7(2) of the Act, from $224.40 to $278.60 per month as from 1 February 1974.

It is to be noted that the permitted rent increase was according to the Gregorian calendar whereas the rent actually collected by the plaintiffs from the first defendant as from the date of permitted increase was in accordance with the agreement based on the Mohamedan year, which, it was agreed by counsel, has one more month than the Gregorian year. More will be said on this matter later.

The plaintiffs, having learnt that the first defendant had sub-let parts of the premises, served a notice to quit dated 28 July 1977 (the second notice) on the first defendant by registered post.

On the evidence led at the trial and the submissions made thereon by counsel for both parties the issues left to the learned trial judge to decide were:

(a) Whether the four sub-tenants, had already been on the premises before the date of the agreement, namely, 29 January 1966 (exh P2);

(b) Whether there had been any sub-letting subsequent to the agreement by the first defendant in breach of cl (b) of the agreement;

(c) Whether the total rent collected by the first defendant from the sub-tenants was in excess of the permitted amount; and

(d) Whether the second notice (exh P6) in all the circumstances of the case is a valid one. It is to be noted that the second notice terminating the tenancy and on which the action for possession was brought relates to a Mohamedan month and not to a Gregorian one. This is confirmed by the order of court dated 21 May 1980 (pp 34 and 35 of record of appeal) which orders the appellant to `pay the plaintiffs mesne profits at $278.60 per Mohamedan month`.

On issue (a) the finding was that the second, third and fifth defendants were already on the premises as sub-tenants before the agreement. On issue (b) the finding was that the fourth defendant only became a sub-tenant of the first defendant sometime in 1970; on this finding the learned trial judge held that there had been a breach of cl (b) of the said agreement, which breach alone would entitle the plaintiffs under the agreement to terminate the tenancy and re-enter the premises. On issue (c) he found against the plaintiffs. On issue (d) he found the second notice to be a valid one. He thereupon gave judgment for the plaintiffs for possession of the said premises on or before 30 April 1980 mesne profits at $278.60 per Mohamedan month as from 3 September 1978 and costs.

The first defendant, being dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned trial judge, appealed to the High Court on the following grounds:

(i) The learned district judge erred in law and in fact in his finding that your

...