Tan Hin Leong v Lee Teck Im

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: G P Selvam J
• Judgment Date: 28 April 2000
• Neutral Citation: [2000] SGHC 70
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 1466 of 1998
• Date: 28 April 2000
• Year: 2000
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Cheong Yuen Hee and CM Sum (CM Sum & Co)
• Citation: [2000] SGHC 70
• Defendant Counsel: James Leslie Ponniah and CP Lee (CP Lee & Co)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Revocation of licence,Whether contractual licence revocable at will,Whether contractual licence or bare licence granted,Revocation of licence upon breach of terms of deed,Deed granting defendant personal right of occupation of property,Land,Licences,Plaintiff serving notice to quit on defendant

: Who is who

Mr Tan Choon Swee (now deceased) the plaintiff`s father, was a wealthy businessman. As a mark of his success he maintained three women. The plaintiff`s counsel referred to them as three `wives`. The defendant was one of them. She began living with him as his `wife` in 1956 when she was 23 years old. They did so at 40 Jalan Seaview. Six years later (1962) he purchased the property known as No 4 Jalan Lada Puteh (`the property`). They cohabited at the property from the time of purchase. He had no child by the defendant. He never deserted her. Mr Tan then was married to the plaintiff`s mother. At some unspecified time he began cohabiting with another woman called Madam Ang. Mr Tan died in 1988. The plaintiff`s mother died in 1997. The plaintiff is 41 years old. The defendant is 67 years old.

The licence

In 1965 Mr Tan purchased another property - No 75 Ming Teck Park. It was purchased in the sole name of the defendant. Subsequently, however, a half interest in Ming Teck Park property was transferred to Mr Tan and they became tenants-in-common. It was rented out.

In 1983 Mr Tan transferred the property to his son. It was meant to be a marriage gift to the son. At that time the plaintiff was living in the USA and continues to do so. The defendant and Mr Tan continued to live in the Jalan Lada Puteh property even though it had been transferred to the plaintiff. There was no hiatus in her occupation of the property.

Now I relate three significant events: The first was that in 1987 Mr Tan transferred his half interest in the Ming Teck Park property to Madam Ang who then moved into that property with her children by Mr Tan. Second was the summoning of the plaintiff to Singapore by Mr Tan in 1987. In Singapore, the plaintiff signed a deed by which he granted a licence to the defendant to live in the property. The deed is the central feature of his case. Third was the decease of Madam Ang in 1989. Upon her death her son inherited Madam Ang`s half share in the Ming Teck Park property.

The plaintiff`s brother, Mr Tan`s lawful son, took charge of the family business. The defendant continued to reside in the Jalan Lada Puteh property. The eldest son gave $500 every month to the defendant and made other payments for her benefit. He did so because that was his father`s wish. Later he doubled the monthly payment to $1,000. Things moved smoothly until 1996 when the defendant wanted to sell her half interest in the Ming Teck Park property. Subsequently it was sold pursuant to an order of court made in 1997. The defendant received something in excess of $1m cash.

The dispute

In the meantime the plaintiff gave notice to the defendant asking her to quit the property. The defendant did not oblige. He did not follow that up.

Later the plaintiff ran out of money. About that time the defendant had just run into money following the sale of the Ming Teck Park property. The plaintiff wanted the defendant out of the property with the view to selling it. The defendant refused to comply. The plaintiff gave a second legal notice on 18 July 1998 demanding possession. The defendant asserted her right to occupy the property until death. In the meantime the plaintiff`s brother demanded of the defendant $55,231.71 and filed an action to recover that amount as `moneys advanced to the defendant consisting of cash payments and payments made for the medical expenses incurred by the defendant`. This was the additional monthly payment of $500 I mentioned in [para ] 5. The defendant paid it without demur. The plaintiff was not so fortunate with his desire. Such are the vagaries of family relationship when it comes to matters concerning money - an all too common phenomenon these days. Hence this action.

The deed

The resolution of this case calls for the construction of the true meaning and effect of the deed made by the parties. The relevant segments of the deed are as follows:

1 One Tan Choon Swee holder of Singapore NRIC No 0244387/B of 797 Mountbatten Road Singapore (hereinafter called `the Donor`) was the registered owner of a property erected on Lot 266 of TS 27 known as No 4 Jalan Lada Puteh Singapore 0922 (hereinafter referred to as `the said Property`) more particularly described in the schedule hereto.

2 By a Deed of Gift dated the 29th day of December 1983 made between the Donor and the Owner, the Donor in consideration of the Owner`s marriage to Cheng Chien Sandy, conveyed unto the Owner by way of a gift all the Donor`s rights, title and interest of the said property, such Deed being duly registered in the Registry of Deeds as Volume 2300 and Number 27.

3 The Owner is presently completing his tertiary studies overseas and at the request of the Donor and the Occupier has out of goodwill agreed to allow the Occupier to remain in occupation of the said Property only on the terms and covenants as hereinafter set out.

Now this deed witnesseth as follows:

1 In consideration of the premises aforesaid, the Owner hereby permit the Occupier to remain in occupation of the said Property at a nominal annual rental of Singapore Dollars $12.00 only.

2 The Occupier hereby covenants that:

(a) she will at all times during the occupation of the said Property, keep the same in good and substantial repair and condition and shall at all times permit the Owner, his servants or agents to enter upon the same for the purpose of inspecting the said Property.

(b) she shall pay all Telecoms and PUB bills in respect of the said Property as soon as the same shall become due.

(c) she shall use the said Property only for the purpose of and as a residence only and will not under any circumstances mortgage sell transfer lease agree to lease let sub-let licence or part with the actual or legal possession of the said Property or any part thereof and shall not in particular leave the said Property vacant or unoccupied for any period exceeding seven (7) consecutive days.

(3) The Occupier hereby irrevocably consents and undertakes that she her legal representatives and/or successors shall not under any circumstances whatsoever make any claim whatsoever or otherwise adverse to the interests, rights and/or title of the Owner in the said Property and the Occupier hereby further confirms that she is in occupation of the said Property only with the leave and licence of the Owner and the licence hereby granted is personal to the Occupier and shall automatically lapse upon her death.

(4) If the Occupier shall commit a breach of any of the covenants herein, the Owner`s leave and licence granted herein shall be forthwith revoked without any prior notice whatsoever to the Occupier and the Owner shall be entitled to re-enter and recover possession of the said Property and in such an event, the Occupier shall deliver vacant possession of the said Property to the Owner and further remove or caused to be removed all her chattels and belongings in the said Property failing which, the Owner shall be at liberty to remove the same at the costs and expense of the Occupier without being liable responsible or having to account to the Occupier for any loss, damage whatsoever and howsoever caused to the same and without prejudice to the Owner`s rights of re-entry and to commence legal proceedings against the Occupier for possession of the said Property or in respect of or in connection with the Occupier`s use of the said Property.

The notices to quit

The first notice to quit dated 28 December 1996 read as follows:

We act for Mr Tan Hin Leong, the owner of the property known as No 4, Jalan Lada Puteh, Singapore 228916 (hereinafter called the `said property`) which you are occupying as licensee.

On our client`s instructions, we hereby on his behalf, give you notice to vacate and demand and require of you that you do on 31 March 1997 quit and deliver possession of the said property to our client.

And take notice that in case of any refusal or neglect on your part to comply with this notice and demand, an action of ejectment or other legal proceedings shall be commenced against you without further notice.

The second notice to quit read as follows:

We act for Mr Tan Hin Leong, the owner of the property known as No 4 Jalan Lada Puteh, Singapore 228916 (hereinafter referred to as `the premises`), which you are occupying as a mere licensee.

On or about 28 October 1996, we on behalf of our client served on you a notice to quit to vacate and deliver possession of the premises by 31 March 1997. As you have failed to comply with the said notice, you have since been in unlawful occupation of the premises.

Without prejudice to our clients` rights under the notice to quit dated 28 December 1996, we are now instructed to give you notice to quit and demand and require that you do on 31 July 1998 quit and deliver to our client possession of the premises.

Take notice that in case of any refusal or neglect on your part to comply with this notice and demand an action for ejectment or other legal proceedings will be commenced against you without further notice in which event you will no doubt be liable for all legal costs thereby incurred.

The plaintiff`s case

The plaintiff`s case was this very simple assertion: The defendant was a bare licensee. The licence was terminated. Accordingly occupation was unlawful. That was his only case. He did not rely on any breach of the obligations in the deed. If the notice to quit took effect it turned the defendant into a trespasser. So there was a claim for damages for trespass.

The defendant`s case

The defendant`s answer was that she was a contractual or equitable licensee. She was so by reason of the deed. She was entitled to be in occupation of the property until death provided she was not in breach of the provisions of the deed. The plaintiff did not allege any breach of the provisions by her. In his opening...