Yit Sin Co Pte Ltd v United Overseas Bank Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: A P Rajah J
• Judgment Date: 23 September 1980
• Neutral Citation: [1980] SGHC 23
• Docket Number: Suit No 3651 of 1978
• Date: 23 September 1980
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1980
• Plaintiff Counsel: LAJ Smith (LAJ Smith)
• Citation: [1980] SGHC 23
• Defendant Counsel: Wong Peng Koon (Shook Lin & Bok)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Principles applicable,Whether tenant overpaid rent,Creation of tenancy,Contract,Rent-controlled premises,Whether plaintiffs tenants or mere licensees,s 3 Control of Rent Act (Cap 266),Whether excess rent recoverable,Landlord and Tenant

The plaintiff company are a private limited company incorporated according to the laws of Singapore and have their registered office at 31 Hokien Street, Singapore 1. The defendants are a bank incorporated in Singapore and have their registered office at United Overseas Bank Building, No 1, Bonham Street, Rattles Place, Singapore 1. They are the owners of a warehouse known as No 162 Havelock Road, Singapore. It was not in dispute that these premises are subject to the provisions of the Control of Rent Act (Cap 266) (the Rent Act).

The plaintiffs claimed to be tenants of the warehouse as from 1 January 1971 at the monthly rental of $3,000 per month payable in advance and that in and from the month of August 1974 the defendants had increased the rental of the warehouse to the sum of $5,000 per month.

The plaintiffs alleged that the standard rent for the warehouse was $2,000 per mensem as this was the rental the defendants had received for the warehouse prior to its letting by the defendants to the plaintiffs at $3,000 per mensem and claimed from the defendants the sum of $186,000 as overpayment of rents by virtue of s 3 of the Rent Act.

The defendants denied that the plaintiffs were their tenants and said that the defendants were mere licencees of the warehouse, paying therefor $3,000 per mensem as from 1 January 1971 and $5,000 per mensem as from 1 August 1974.

In their counterclaim against the plaintiffs, the defendants alleged (1) that the licence of the plaintiffs to use the warehouse was lawfully terminated on 31 December 1978 and (2) that as from 1 January 1979 the plaintiffs were trespassers and so in wrongful occupation of the warehouse and claimed recovery of the warehouse.

The plaintiffs joined issue with the defendants on their defence and in reply said (1) that they had been given exclusive possession of the warehouse, (2) that they had paid rent therefor and (3) that the real relationship of the defendants and the plaintiffs as between themselves was that of landlord and tenant respectively.

On the principles applicable in determining whether a transaction has brought about a tenancy or a licence I can do no better than quote from Lord Justice Denning (as he then was) in the case of Facchini v Bryson [1952] 1 TLR 1386, 1389. (This passage was cited with approval by Choor Singh J in the case of Indo-Australian Trading Co Ltd v Krishnasamy [1972-1974] SLR 278 ):

We have had many cases lately where an occupier has been held to

...