Teo Gracie v Tay Leng Hong and Others

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeL P Thean J
Judgment Date12 June 1987
Neutral Citation[1987] SGHC 19
Docket NumberDistrict Court Appeal No 15 of 1984
Date12 June 1987
Year1987
Published date19 September 2003
Plaintiff CounselAndrew Ee (Andrew Ee & Co)
Citation[1987] SGHC 19
Defendant CounselSahul Hameed (Hameed & Co)
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Subject MatterImprovement in premises,Civil Procedure,Tenant spent money to improve premises in return for non-increase in rent,O 15 r 8(4)(a) Rules of the Supreme Court [UK],Agreements for leases,Statement of claim amended to add fourth plaintiff,Claim for arrears of rent and vacant possession,s 17(4) Civil Law Act (Cap 30),Date of effect,Holding over,O 8 r 8(3) Subordinate Courts Rules 1970,Landlord and Tenant,Whether equitable right to retain possession of premises

The first, second and third plaintiffs are the executors of the will of the late Lim Sin Lock deceased, who at the date of death was the owner of, inter alia, the premises known as No 11-K, Jalan Sayang, Singapore (the said premises). The defendant was a tenant of the said premises paying a monthly rent of $40; she became a tenant thereof in 1971. On 19 October 1979 the solicitors acting for the first and second plaintiffs as executors of the will of Lim Sin Lock deceased gave to the defendant a notice to quit and deliver vacant possession of the said premises on or before 30 November 1979. After the expiry of the notice the defendant remained in possession of the said premises and refused to quit. On 19 May 1980 the first, second and third plaintiffs instituted an action in the district court claiming for arrears of rent due, mesne profits for holding over the said premises from 1 December 1979 and vacant possession of the said premises.

After the action had been commenced, the first, second and third plaintiffs sold, inter alia, the said premises to one Ng Chwee Yan, who subsequently sold them to M/s Davis Development Pte Ltd the said premises together with other Properties were conveyed to the company on 14 June 1983.
Subsequent to the sale of the said premises, the first, second and third plaintiffs applied for and obtained an order dated 8 November 1983 joining M/s Davis Development Pte Ltd as the fourth plaintiff in the action and giving leave to the plaintiffs to amend the statement of claim and the defendant to amend her defence within 14 days after service of the amended statement of claim. Against that order the defendant did not appeal. In consequence of the order, the statement of claim was amended in which the first, second and third plaintiffs claimed for the balance of the arrears of rent due amounting to a sum of $2,160 and mesne profits for holding over the said premises from 1 December 1979 to March 1983 at the rate of $80 per month and the fourth plaintiff claimed possession of the said premises and an amount for use and occupation of the said premises at the rate of $80 per month with effect from 15 June 1983 to the date of delivery of possession of the said premises. The defendant then amended her defence which was filed and delivered on 3 December 1983.

Immediately before the commencement of the trial on 30 January 1984 counsel for the defendant applied (by way of Notice of Application No 683 of 1984) for an order that the fourth plaintiff be struck out as a party to the action on the ground that it had no cause of action at the date when the action was commenced.
The application was dismissed by the learned district judge who held that, firstly, the application was misconceived and, secondly, in any event it had no merit. The trial then proceeded and the issues before the Court were:

(i) whether the said premises are premises within the meaning of the Control of Rent Act;

(ii) whether an irrevocable tenancy of the said premises for a term of 30 years had been granted to the defendant; and

(iii) whether the defendant had an equitable right to retain possession of the said premises.



On the first issue, the learned district judge on the evidence before him found that the said premises were not the premises within the meaning of the Control of Rent Act.
On the second issue, he found that no irrevocable tenancy of the said premises for a term of 30 years had been granted to the defendant. As for the third issue, he held that the defendant had no equitable right to retain possession of the said premises. However, on the facts, he held that the defendant had spent a sum of $2,000 in improving the said premises at the material time with the knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs and in view thereof the defendant had an equity in the said premises which ought to be satisfied. He gave: (i) judgment to the first, second and third plaintiffs in the sum of $1,600 being the mesne profits at the rate of $40 per month with effect from 1 December 1979 to March 1983 and awarded costs of $1,147 to them, and (ii) judgment to the fourth plaintiff for the recovery of possession of the said premises to be delivered on or before 30 April 1984 and he ordered the fourth plaintiff to pay a sum of $2,000 to the defendant in satisfaction of her equity, such sum to be paid before she delivered vacant possession of the said premises on or before 30 April 1984 and he further ordered the defendant pay to the fourth plaintiff a sum of $40 per month for the use and occupation of the said premises with effect from 15 June 1983 to the date of delivery of possession. Lastly, he ordered the defendant to quit the said premises on or before 30 April 1984.

In the course of the trial, counsel for the defendant raised a further defence which was not pleaded: he submitted that on the evidence the late Lim Sin Lock built the said premises illegally, as no building plans had been submitted to the authorities and no approval had been obtained, and accordingly he urged the court not to lend its assistance to the plaintiffs to enforce the claims which, he said, were tainted with illegality.
The learned district judge rejected this defence on the ground that there was no sufficient evidence that no building plans had been submitted to the relevant authorities and no approval had been obtained. Further, the learned district judge held that the tenancy was legal and there was no suggestion on behalf of the defendant that it was in any way illegal.

Against the decision of the learned district judge the defendant appealed; prior to the filing of the notice of appeal against that decision, the defendant also filed a notice of appeal against the earlier decision of the learned district judge dismissing the application No 683 of 1984 made immediately prior to the commencement of the trial - that was DCA 7/84.
Though irregular, the defendant in her petition of appeal in this appeal (DCA 15/84) set out the grounds of both the appeals, and at the hearing counsel for the defendant argued both the appeals before me. The plaintiffs also filed a respondents` notice contending that the decision of the learned district judge should be varied. At the conclusion of the hearing, I dismissed the appeal with costs, and as regards the respondents` notice I varied the judgment of the learned district judge to the extent as follows:

(a) the amount payable by the defendant to first, second and third plaintiffs as mesne profits be varied to $3,000 at $80 per month from 1...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Instantcolor System Sdn Bhd v Inkmaker Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd
    • Malaysia
    • Federal Court (Malaysia)
    • Invalid date
  • Antariksa Logistics Pte Ltd v Mc Trans Cargo (S) Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 30 July 2012
    ...(folld) Tavoulareas v Lau [2007] EWCA Civ 474 (refd) Tear v Freebody (1858) 4 CB NS 228; 140 ER 1071 (refd) Teo Gracie v Tay Leng Hong [1987] SLR (R) 315; [1987] SLR 319 (refd) Tinsley v Milligan [1994] 1 AC 340 (folld) Top Ten Entertainment Pte Ltd v Lucky Red Investments Ltd [2004] 4 SLR ......
  • Yeo Boong Hua and Another v Turf City Pte Ltd and Others
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 24 February 2004
    ...issue of the OS and the action would continue as if the amendment had been inserted from the beginning: Teo Gracie v Tay Leng Hong [1987] 1 SLR 319. This means that a party cannot amend the OS to add a cause of action which had accrued to him since the issue of the OS: Saga Foodstuffs Manuf......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT