Syed Hussain Alkaff and Others v AM Abdullah Sahib & Co

• Judge: Lai Kew Chai J
• Judgment Date: 04 September 1984
• Neutral Citation: [1984] SGCA 20
• Citation: [1984] SGCA 20
• Defendant Counsel: Karuppan Chettiar (Murphy & Dunbar)
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Kirpal Singh (Kirpow Singh & Co)
• Date: 04 September 1984
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 70 of 1983
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Damages,Rent-controlled premises,Whether estoppel applicable,Whether respondent trespasser or tenant,Landlord and Tenant,Vacant possession -Injunction,Consent judgment,s 14 Control of Rent Act (Cap 266),Termination of leases,ss 8 & 16 Land Acquisition Act (Cap 272)

This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court given on 11 November 1983 declaring the judgment obtained by the appellants in the district court in DC Summons No 4416 of 1978 a nullity and setting it aside and awarding to the respondent damages agreed at a sum of $50,000.

The appellants are the trustees of the 1898 Alkaff Settlement and were at all material times the owners of the premises No 123-A and 123-B Market Street, Singapore (the said premises). On 28 August 1978 the appellants initiated proceedings in the district court in DC Summons No 4416 of 1978, claiming that:

(i) The said premises were let to one AA Mohamed Maideen s/o AM Abdullah Sahib on a monthly tenancy and that the said AA Mohamed Maideen carried on business on the said premises as AM Abdullah Sahib & Co.

(ii) In June 1978 the appellants learnt that the said AA Mohamed Maideen was no longer the proprietor or a partner of the firm of AM Abdullah Sahib & Co which were in occupation of the said premises.

(iii) By a letter dated 28 June 1978 to the respondents the appellants enquired of the whereabouts of the said AA Mohamed Maideen but did not receive a reply.

(iv) Upon investigation the appellants discovered that the said AA Mohamed Maideen died in 1959.

(v) By a notice to quit dated 28 June 1978 served on the honourable the Chief Justice of Singapore the tenancy in the name of the said AA Mohamed Maideen was terminated on 3 August 1978.

(vi) The appellants claimed that the tenancy of the said premises had been duly determined and the occupation of the said premises by the Respondents were that of trespassers and unlawful, and claimed possession thereof.

By their defence delivered on 6 December 1978 the respondents pleaded that they were the lawful tenants of the said premises and invoked the protection of the Control of Rent Act (Cap 266). It is common ground that the said premises were premises within the meaning of the said Act.

Subsequently the appellants and the respondents came to a settlement and by consent judgment was entered against the respondents on 18 December 1979 on certain terms, which include delivery by the respondents of possession of the said premises to the appellants and a stay of execution on the judgment until certain events occurring, and one such event was the compulsory acquisition of the said premises by government. Thereafter, by virtue of the terms of the said judgment (the consent judgment), the respondent remained in possession of the said premises.

On 28 March 1980 a notice under s 8 of the Land Acquisition Act (Cap 272) was issued for the acquisition of, inter alia , the said premises. In accordance with the said Act the appellants lodged a claim for compensation which was...