Bannerji HL v Chin Cheng Realty (Pte) Ltd
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 16 August 1985 |
| Date | 16 August 1985 |
| Docket Number | Privy Council Appeal No 40 of 1983 |
| Court | Privy Council |
[1985] SGPC 3
Privy Council
Lord Roskill
,
Lord Brandon of Oakbrook
,
Lord Griffiths
,
Sir Denys Buckley
and
Sir Owen Woodhouse
Privy Council Appeal No 40 of 1983
Robert Reid QC and Daniel Hockborg (Denton Hall & Burgin) for the appellant
Alan Sebestyen (Collyer-Bristow) for the respondent.
Landlord and Tenant–Recovery of possession–Lease providing for renewal and increment of rent–Tenant exercising option to renew lease–Landlord refusing to grant renewal on basis of tenant's failure to pay increased rent–Tenant continued to pay a percentage of rent demanded by landlord–Tenant remaining in possession–Whether tenant entitled to specific performance of lease–Whether landlord estopped from claiming possession of premises–Words and Phrases–Meaning of “assessment” and “proportionately”
Moh Seng Realty (Pte) Ltd (“the appellant”) had entered into a perpetually renewable lease with Dr Bannerji (“the respondent”) that was renewable at ten-year intervals. The terms of the lease agreement provided, amongst other things, that the appellant would pay all rates, taxes, assessments and outgoings payable by law in respect of the demised premises other than City Council charges for utilities. There was a further clause that stipulated that “if the assessment on the said premises shall at any time within the said period be increased or decreased then and in such event the said rent shall also be proportionately increased or decreased accordingly” (“the Clause”).
At the end of the first ten-year term, the respondent wrote to the appellant to exercise his option to renew the lease for a further ten years. This was never granted by the appellant. Nevertheless, the respondent remained in possession of the premises and continued to pay the same rent. In any case, it was conceded in these proceedings that the respondent was entitled under the agreement to the grant of the renewed lease. Subsequently, an upward revaluation of the annual value of the premises resulted in an 118.18% increase in the tax payable by the appellant. The appellant thus wrote to the respondent demanding for an increased rent of $240, which represented a similar percentage increment from the original monthly rent of $110. The respondent, however, disputed the demand and, over the next three years, continued to send cheques for an amount of $156.80, which represented the sum of the original rent and the absolute increase of $46.80 in the monthly property tax. The appellant never accepted the cheques and never cashed any of them.
When the appellant subsequently refused the respondent's request to be granted a third ten-year term, the respondent sued the appellant for specific performance. The appellant in turn sued for possession of the premises. The trial judge found in favour of the appellant and held that the respondent was not entitled to exercise the option for renewal of the lease on the ground that on a true construction of the lease, the appellant was entitled to a monthly rent of $240 and the respondent had failed to pay that amount. The Court of Appeal allowed the respondent's appeal and held that the rent was to be increased by no more than the amount of the absolute increase in property tax. The appellant appealed to the Privy Council, where it was further contended by the respondent that the appellant was estopped from relying on the former's failure to pay the increased rent in order to refuse to grant the renewal of the lease.
Held, allowing the appeal:
(1) The Court of Appeal was right to hold that the words “the assessment” referred not to the annual value of the premises as had been held by the trial judge but to the amount of the rates or taxes to be paid on the premises, which is the product of the application of the percentage rate of tax to the annual value: at [18].
(2) Giving due weight to the word “proportionately”, it was clear that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Collector of Land Revenue v Ang Thian Soo
-
Trustees of the Kheng Chiu Tin Hou Kong and Burial Ground v Collector of Land Revenue (Housing and Development Board)
...... in accordance with s 33(1): see Teng Fuh Holdings Pte Ltd v Collector of Land Revenue [1988] 3 MLJ 305 It ......
- Abu Bakar v Jawahir and Others
-
Chi Liung Holdings Sdn Bhd v Attorney General
...... sale of the properties to a company, Teng Fuh Holdings Pte Ltd (`Teng Fuh`). Although Teng Fuh is a company ... alia, on Aberfoyle Plantations Ltd v Khaw Bian Cheng and Chiang Hong (Pte) Ltd v Ong Boon Pok Realty (Pte) ......