VM Peer Mohamed v Great Eastern Life Assurance Co Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chua F A J
• Judgment Date: 09 September 1982
• Neutral Citation: [1982] SGCA 15
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 60 of 1981
• Date: 09 September 1982
• Year: 1982
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: JB Jeyaretnam (JB Jeyaretnam & Co)
• Citation: [1982] SGCA 15
• Defendant Counsel: Kirpal Singh (Kirpal Singh & Co)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether agreement amounted to assignment of tenancy,Agreement between tenant as vendor and appellant as purchaser for sale of all fixtures and furniture in premises,Landlord and Tenant,Assignment,Creation of tenancy

On 9 December 1953 one D Abdullah was the tenant under an oral monthly tenancy of No 449 East Coast Road, Singapore (the premises) and the Great Eastern Life Assurance Co Ltd, the respondents in this appeal, were and still are the landlord of the premises. On that day D Abdullah `as vendor` entered into an `agreement` under seal with the appellant, Peer Mohamed, `as Purchaser`.

The material recitals in the deed read as follows:

Whereas the vendor is the principal tenant of premises situate and known as No 449 East Coast Road, Singapore ... and whereas the vendor ... has agreed to sell to the purchaser all fixtures and furniture in the said premises and the purchaser has agreed to purchase the same for the sum of dollars three thousand three hundred ($3,300) and it is further agreed that the vendor shall cease to be the principal tenant of the said premises ...

The material operative part of the deed states as follows:

Now this agreement witnesseth as follows:

1 In consideration of the sum of Dollars Three Thousand Three Hundred ($3,300) now paid by the purchaser to the vendor ... the vendor ... hereby assign unto the purchaser all furniture and fixtures on the said premises and do hold the same unto the purchaser absolutely.

(2) The vendor ... covenant with the purchaser that he has power to transfer the tenancy of the aforesaid premises into his own name.

(3) The purchaser agrees with the vendor ... that he will undertake on his own accord to have the tenancy transferred into his name and all expenses incurred shall be borne by him.

The appellant`s assertion that he attempted to transfer the tenancy of the premises to his own name was disbelieved by the trial judge who also found that all future rent receipts were made out in the name of D Abdullah.

The sole issue in this appeal is whether on the true construction of the deed the tenancy of the premises had been transferred by way of an assignment to the appellant by D Abdullah. It is conceded on behalf of the appellant that a transfer of the tenancy by way of an assignment would have to be made by deed.

The High Court came to the conclusion that under the document the tenancy of the premises had not been assigned by D Abdullah to the appellant and held that it was merely an agreement evidencing the sale of the furniture and fittings on the premises by D Abdullah to the appellant.

We agree with the conclusion and finding of the High Court. The rules...