Yat Yuen Hong Company Ltd v Turquand, Youngs & Company
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judgment Date | 25 February 1967 |
Date | 25 February 1967 |
Docket Number | Suit No 471 of 1966 |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
[1967] SGHC 1
J W D Ambrose J
Suit No 471 of 1966
High Court
Landlord and Tenant–Termination of leases–Surrender–Tenant agreed to vacate premises if landlord met certain conditions–Landlord failed to meet conditions–Whether tenant could enforce agreement–Whether payment of consideration to vacate premises was lawful–Conditions in Premiums on Leases Ordinance (Cap 253, 1955 Rev Ed)–Whether these conditions could be met by plaintiff–Whether payment of consideration contravened Control of Rent Ordinance (Cap 242, 1955 Rev Ed)
The plaintiff was the tenant of rent-controlled premises. It agreed to give up possession of the premises to the defendant landlord, on condition that the latter paid a sum of money to it, and complied with certain clauses. However, the defendant failed to act in accordance with the agreement. The plaintiff sued. The defendant admitted to making the agreement, but raised the following two points of law: (a) whether the agreement was unlawful because it was not presented to the City Council or the successors thereof, thus failing to comply with s 2 of the Premiums on Leases Ordinance; and (b) whether the agreement was unenforceable because the premises were subject to the provisions of the Control of Rent Ordinance (Cap 242, 1955 Rev Ed).
Held, allowing the plaintiff's claim:
(1) Requiring consideration for giving up possession of any building is an unlawful act unless (a) particulars are furnished in a written document and (b) the document is forthwith presented for inspection by the person giving up possession to the City Council. “Forthwith” means “as soon as practicable”. In the present case condition (a) was complied with. With regard to condition (b) it is the person giving up possession who has to present the document to the City Council as soon as practicable. However, condition (b) can only be complied with if the plaintiff gave up possession. As possession had not yet been given up by the plaintiff, the duty to present the document for inspection to the City Council had not arisen: at [9].
(2) It is impossible for the plaintiff to comply with condition (b) as there seems to be no statutory provision requiring anyone to exercise the function of receiving and inspecting the document under s 2 (1) of the Premiums on Leases Ordinance (Cap 253, 1955 Rev Ed). Condition (b) must therefore be regarded as suspended until statutory provision is made for the function in question to be exercised by someone: at [10] and [11].
(3) The consideration required by the plaintiffs to be given by the defendants was not in addition to the rent. The consideration was required as a condition of the surrender of the tenancy to the landlords. The consideration was not required as a condition of the transfer of the tenancy. Therefore, by requiring the giving of the consideration as a condition of the surrender of the tenancy, the plaintiffs did not contravene the provisions of s 4 of the Control of Rent Ordinance. There was also no reason for holding that the agreement was in any degree vitiated by the effect of the Control of Rent Ordinance. It was enforceable notwithstanding the provisions of the ordinance: at [14] and [17].
Barton v Fincham [1921] 2 KB 291 (refd)
Rajenback v Mamon [1955] 1 QB 283 (folld)
Sameen v Abeyewickrema [1936] AC 597 (refd)
City Council (Suspension and Transfer of Functions) Ordinance 1959 (No 40 of1959)s 6
Control of Rent Ordinance (Cap 242, 1955Rev Ed)s 4
Local Government Integration Ordinance 1963 (No 18 of 1963)ss 3 (2),185
Premiums on Leases Ordinance (Cap 253, 1955Rev Ed)s 2 (1)
Property Tax Ordinance1960 (No 72 of 1960)
K A O'Connor (Drew & Napier) for the plaintiff
A P Godwin (Donaldson & Burkinshaw) for the defendant.
1 In this action the plaintiffs claim from the defendants the...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Yat Yuen Hong Co Ltd v Turquand, Youngs & Co
-
Ting Siew May v Boon Lay Choo
...1 QB 267 (folld) Tinline v White Cross Insurance Association Ltd [1921] 3 KB 327 (refd) Turquand, Youngs&Co v Yat Yuen Hong Co Ltd [1965-1967] SLR (R) 517; [1965-1968] SLR 571 (refd) Vita Food Products Inc v Unus Shipping Co Ltd [1939] AC 277 (refd) Waugh v Morris (1873) LR 8 QB 202 (refd) ......
-
Ting Siew May v Boon Lay Choo and another
...thereof) is concerned. As Ambrose J observed in the Singapore High Court decision of Turquand, Youngs & Co v Yat Yuen Hong Co Ltd [1965-1967] SLR(R) 517 (at [9]): The dominant purpose in construing a statute is to ascertain the intention of the Legislature as so expressed. The intention, an......
-
People's Park Development (Pte) Ltd v Lian Ya (Pte) Ltd
... ... the leases with Lau Song Hwai and Lau Cher Hong who represented the defendants. He allowed the ... he was not in a position to say if his company had sufficient funds to pay rent. He agreed that ... The case of Yat Yuen Hong v Turquand, Youngs & Co [1965-1968] ... ...