Teck Seng & Co v Eu Keng Yuet William

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Wee Chong Jin CJ
• Judgment Date: 06 May 1980
• Neutral Citation: [1980] SGHC 13
• Docket Number: District Court Appeal No 3 of 1978
• Date: 06 May 1980
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1980
• Plaintiff Counsel: G. Murugaiyan (G Murugaiyan)
• Citation: [1980] SGHC 13
• Defendant Counsel: Kirpal Singh (Kirpal Singh & Co)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether effective,Landlord and Tenant,s 37 Probate and Administration Act (Cap 23),Termination of leases,Intestate succession,Notice to quit,Descent of real estate,Notice to quit to deceased tenant,Effect of notice to quit addressed to deceased tenant,Death of tenant unknown to owner of premises,Probate and Administration

In August 1943 Ng Huat Lye became the tenant of No 59, Tanjong Pagar Road, which was then owned by Eu Tong Sen Ltd at the monthly rent of $30. A deposit of $30 was paid and a receipt dated 12 August 1943 was issued by the landlords to `Teck Seng Kongsi - Ng Huat Lye.` Thereafter the monthly rents were paid to and rent receipts issued by the landlords to `Teck Seng Kongsi - Ng Huat Lye.`

Ng Huat Lye died in August 1971 but the present occupiers of the premises, the appellants, continued to pay the monthly rents to the landlords who continued to issue rent receipts to `Teck Seng Kongsi - Ng Huat Lye` because they were unaware that Ng Huat Lye had died. In 1976 the respondent became the owner of the premises and, being unaware that Ng Huat Lye had died, sent through his solicitors in December 1976 a notice to quit which was addressed to `Mr Ng Huat Lye, 59 Tanjong Pagar Road, Singapore` determining the tenancy on 31 January 1977. The notice to quit was served at the premises on the occupiers who refused to comply with the notice to quit.

The respondent commenced proceedings in the district court against the appellants for possession of the premises on the ground that the appellants were in unlawful possession. The district judge gave judgment against the appellants who now appeal.

The only ground of appeal relied on by the appellants at the hearing of the appeal is that the notice to quit had not effectively determined the tenancy of Ng Huat Lye which on his death intestate had become vested in the Chief Justice by virtue of s 37 of the Probate and Administration Act (Cap 23). This contention was raised before the Court of Appeal in Lai Seng Fook v Tang Kong Low [1978-1979] SLR 40 where the court decided that where the person in occupation continues to pay the rent to the landlord after the death...