Khng Thian Huat v Riduan bin Yusof: Tenancy Dispute over Property Condition and Costs Allocation

In Khng Thian Huat and Choy Mei Har v Riduan bin Yusof and Sa'adiah binte Mohamed Shaffi, the High Court of Singapore addressed a dispute arising from a tenancy agreement. The plaintiffs, Khng Thian Huat and Choy Mei Har, sued the defendants, Riduan bin Yusof and Sa'adiah binte Mohamed Shaffi, for double rent and damages for failing to restore the property to its original condition. Rajah JC dismissed the claim for double rent but allowed the claim for damages and loss of usage. The court ordered that the parties bear their own costs. The first defendant appealed against the decision on damages and costs.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiffs’ claim allowed in part.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Tenancy dispute involving Khng Thian Huat and Riduan bin Yusof over property condition and costs allocation. The court dismissed the claim for double rent but allowed damages.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Khng Thian HuatPlaintiffIndividualClaim allowed in partPartialHri Kumar, Tan Teck San Kelvin, Wong Chin Soon Wilson
Choy Mei HarPlaintiffIndividualClaim allowed in partPartialHri Kumar, Tan Teck San Kelvin, Wong Chin Soon Wilson
Riduan bin YusofDefendantIndividualClaim allowed in partPartialMohamed Hashim, N Kanagavijayan
Sa'adiah binte Mohamed ShaffiDefendantIndividualNeutralNeutralMohamed Hashim, N Kanagavijayan

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
V K RajahJCYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Hri KumarDrew and Napier LLC
Tan Teck San KelvinDrew and Napier LLC
Wong Chin Soon WilsonDrew and Napier LLC
Mohamed HashimA Mohamed Hashim and Madelene Sng
N KanagavijayanA Mohamed Hashim and Madelene Sng

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiffs owned a property at 95 Telok Kurau Road, Singapore.
  2. The first defendant was the tenant of the property.
  3. The second defendant managed a kindergarten at the property.
  4. The first tenancy ran from 1 January 1995 to 31 March 1997.
  5. The second tenancy ran from 1 April 1997 to 31 March 2000.
  6. A letter of intent was signed for a third tenancy from 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2003.
  7. The official lease for the third tenancy was not signed.
  8. The defendants vacated the property on 10 April 2003.
  9. The court expert concluded that the defendants were responsible for damage to the property in the sum of $110,575.00, in addition to the sum of $15,595.00 which the parties’ experts had earlier jointly accepted as the sum due from the defendants.
  10. The court expert stated that it would have taken seven weeks to repair the damage and reinstate the property.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Khng Thian Huat and Another v Riduan bin Yusof and Another, Suit 929/2003, [2004] SGHC 237

6. Timeline

DateEvent
First tenancy commenced
First tenancy ended
Second tenancy commenced
Letter of intent signed for third tenancy
Third tenancy commenced
Second tenancy ended
Plaintiffs asserted property occupied on periodic basis
Plaintiffs served notice of termination
Claim for double rent commenced
Defendants demanded consideration for leaving alterations intact
Defendants demanded consideration for leaving alterations intact
Plaintiffs gained access to the property
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Costs Allocation
    • Outcome: The court ordered that the parties bear their own costs, considering the conduct of the parties and the circumstances of the case.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [1994] 2 SLR 489
      • [1993] 1 All ER 232
      • [2001] SGHC 19
      • [2001] EWCA Civ 2020
      • [2001] 4 SLR 603
  2. Breach of Covenant
    • Outcome: The court held that the tenant was obliged to deliver the property inclusive of alterations made during the first and second tenancies.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Wrongful Holding Over
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim for double rent, finding that both parties had acknowledged the existence of the third tenancy.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Double Rent
  2. Damages for Failure to Restore Property
  3. Consequential Loss of Usage

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Covenant
  • Wrongful Holding Over

10. Practice Areas

  • Litigation

11. Industries

  • Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Tullio v MaoroCourt of AppealYes[1994] 2 SLR 489SingaporeCited for the general discretionary approach in relation to the assessment of costs.
Re Elgindata Ltd (No 2)N/AYes[1993] 1 All ER 232EnglandCited for the principles on which costs were to be awarded.
Harte Denis Matthew v Tan Hun HoeHigh CourtYes[2001] SGHC 19SingaporeCited for the relevance of the parties’ conduct in assessing costs.
Summit Property Ltd v PitmansEnglish Court of AppealNo[2001] EWCA Civ 2020EnglandCited for the issue-based approach to the allocation of costs.
Esdaile v MacleanN/AYes(1846) 15 M & W 277; 153 ER 854N/ACited for the interpretation of the word 'said' in a contractual clause.
Ho Kon Kim v Lim Geok Kim Betsy (No 2)N/AYes[2001] 4 SLR 603SingaporeCited for the principle that the court ought to look at all the circumstances of the case including any matters that led to the litigation.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
s 28(4) of the Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed)Singapore
Order 59 r 5 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed)Singapore
O 59 r 6A of the ROCSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Tenancy
  • Letter of Intent
  • Official Lease
  • Holding Over
  • Restoration of Property
  • Alterations
  • Costs
  • Issue-Based Approach
  • Fair Wear and Tear
  • Security Deposit

15.2 Keywords

  • tenancy
  • costs
  • Singapore
  • property
  • landlord
  • tenant

16. Subjects

  • Landlord and Tenant Law
  • Civil Procedure
  • Costs Allocation

17. Areas of Law

  • Civil Procedure
  • Landlord and Tenant