Syed Hussain Alkaff and Others v Teo Ee Hup

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lai Kew Chai J
• Judgment Date: 14 October 1982
• Neutral Citation: [1982] SGCA 18
• Date: 14 October 1982
• Subject Matter: Whether reasonable to order recovery of possession,s 15(1)(b) Control of Rent Act (Cap 266),Tenant in breach of tenancy,Possession,Covenants,Landlord and Tenant,Rent-controlled premises,Subletting/ underletting
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 7 of 1982
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Defendant Counsel: JB Jeyaretnam (JB Jeyaretnam & Co)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Kirpal Singh (Kirpal Singh & Co)

The appellants, the trustees of the 1898 Alkaff settlement who brought this appeal, as plaintiffs in District Court Summons No 5601 of 1978, claimed possession of No 191 Beach Road (the premises) from the respondent, the first defendant in the action, on the ground that the respondent was in breach of a condition of his tenancy not to sublet. Before the appeal came on for hearing however, by an order of court dated 16 August 1982, Mr Lim Kain Yait who had bought the premises in March 1982 was substituted as the appellant in place of the trustees. The appeal heard on 14 September 1982 was dismissed with costs. We now give our reasons.

The parties are hereafter referred to as `the landlords` and `the tenant`.

It is not in dispute that the premises were subject to the provisions of the Control of Rent Act (Cap 266) (the Act); that the tenant was in possession of the premises under a tenancy agreement dated 29 January 1966 at the monthly rental of $224.40 payable according to the Muslim calendar; and that under cl 2(b) of the said agreement the tenant was prohibited from subletting without the landlords` consent.

It is also not in dispute that on the application of the landlords to the Rent Conciliation Board (the Board), by an order of the Board dated 24 May 1974, the rent of the premises was increased from $224.40 to $278.60 and the rent retrospectively took effect, according to the Gregorian calendar, on 1 February 1974. In order to make the application, the landlords had to comply with s 7(2) of the Act, the tenancy had to be determined according to law. This the landlords did by giving a notice to quit dated 28 December 1973 (the first notice to quit) terminating the tenancy on 31 January 1974.

The claim of the landlords is that in 1977 they became aware that the tenant had sublet parts of the premises. They stopped collecting rent and served a notice to quit dated 28 July 1977 (the second notice to quit) determining the tenancy according to the Muslim calendar on 13 September 1977.

As regards the sub-letting, the tenant does not dispute that there are sub-tenants on the premises. It is his case that they were already there on the first floor when in 1966 he took over the tenancy of the whole of the premises to operate a coffee shop on the ground floor thereof.

The learned senior district judge who heard the case found as a fact that three of the four subtenants were already on the premises in 1966, and that the landlords through their...