Vivek Kapoor and another v Zhang Xiaoshi [2025] SGMC 24

Introduction

The present applications arise out of a tenancy dispute between the claimants as landlord and the defendant as tenant. At a case conference on 10 July 2024, the claimants obtained judgment in the absence of the defendant (“Default Judgment”), on the following terms:

Subsequently, the defendant filed the present two identical applications to set aside the Default Judgment.

Having carefully considered the matter, I dismiss the defendant’s applications. I now provide my reasons for my decision.

Background facts

The relevant facts are simple. The claimants leased an apartment (“Apartment”) to the defendant from 1 May 2020 to 30 April 2022. Upon the expiry of the tenancy agreement, parties entered into a second tenancy agreement (“Tenancy Agreement”), effectively extending the lease for the Apartment, for the period from 1 May 2022 to 30 April 2023. It is undisputed that the lease expired on 30 April 2023 and that the security deposit held by the claimants at the expiry of the tenancy was $6,900.

The claimants’ claim in the present action is for damages arising from breach of contract. In particular, the claimants allege that the defendant has breached the Tenancy Agreement by:

(a) First, failing to pay rent for the month of April 2023;

(b) Second, failing to maintain the apartment in good and working condition in breach of clause 3(d) of the Tenancy Agreement; and

(c) Third, failing to maintain the air-conditioning system in the Apartment in breach of clause 3(o) of the Tenancy Agreement.

The defendants’ pleaded defences to the claimants’ claims are that:

(a) First, there was a “mutually verbally agreed-upon arrangement” to use the security deposit of $6,900 to set off against the last month of rent payable;

(b) Second, the Apartment “was not in a clean condition” at the start of the tenancy; and

(c) Third, “[t]here was an ongoing issue with the air-conditioner when [the defendant] first moved in” and that it was the “landlord’s responsibility to ensure that the rental property, including appliances like the air conditioner, were maintained in good working condition throughout the tenancy” .

A case conference was fixed for MC/OC 2139/2024 on 10 July 2024. However, the defendant failed to attend the hearing.

In the circumstances, in light of the defendant’s absence at the case conference, pursuant to Order 2 rule 6(4) read with Order 9 rule 4(2) of the Rules of Court 2021 (“ROC”), the defence was dismissed and judgment was entered for the claimants on the terms of the Default Judgment.

Pursuant to the Default Judgment, the defendant was to pay to the claimants damages in the sum of $16,923, comprising of:

(a) $4,638, being the unpaid rental for April 2023 and 1 month interest;

(b) $19,185 for repairs and replacements, as follows:

(i) $6,100 for air-conditioning repairs and replacements;

(ii) $1,050 for cleaning the Apartment; drycleaning of curtain;

(iii) $1,500 for repairing and replacing damaged kitchen cabinets;

(iv) $1,000 for repairing and replacing the damaged common toilet vanity;

(v) $3,795 for replacement and repair costs for appliances such as refrigerator, television, microwave, kitchen hood hob, dryer, tv cabinet, dining table, patio furniture;

(vi) $500 for replacement and repair costs for toilet doors;

(vii) $740 for replacement and repair costs for lights and missing keys;

(viii) $4,500 for polishing of floors and painting of entire Apartment; and

(c) less rental deposit of $6,900.

On 7 August 2024 and 16 August 2024, the defendant filed two identical applications to set aside the Default Judgment.

The law on setting aside default judgments

Under Order 13 rule 8 of the ROC, the court may set aside a judgment entered in default of appearance. It is well-established that if the default judgment is a regular one, the test is whether the defendant can show a prima facie defence that raises triable or arguable issues (See Mercurine Pte Ltd v Canberra Development Pte Ltd [2008] 4 SLR(R) 907 at [95]–[96]).

It is not disputed in the present applications that the Default Judgment was a regular default judgment. Accordingly, in order to successfully set aside the Default Judgment, the defendant has to present a defence on merits.

My decision: the Default Judgment should not be set aside

I consider whether the defendant has shown a prima facie defence in respect of each of the claimants’ heads of claim in turn.

Claim for unpaid rent for April 2023

The claimants’ first pleaded head of claim is for rent payable for the last month of the tenancy, April 2023, plus interest, totalling $4,638.

Although the defendant pleaded in her defence that there was a “mutually verbally agreed-upon arrangement” to set off the security deposit against the last month of rent, the three supporting affidavits filed by the defendant in the present applications are silent on this point. No particulars, details or any further explanation about this alleged arrangement were provided.

On the other hand, the claimants rely on clause 2 of the Tenancy Agreement which expressly states that “…the Tenant shall not be entitled in any manner to use the Deposit or any part thereof to set off against the Monthly Rent or any part thereof…”

Further, in the course of oral arguments, the defendant admitted that the reason why she did not pay the last month of rent for April 2023 was because she “was afraid [the claimants would] refuse to refund [her] the deposit” .

In my view, the defendant’s assertion of an alleged arrangement to set off the security deposit against rent payable is a bare assertion unsupported by any evidence. In fact, it is contradicted by the documentary evidence before me. Accordingly, I do not consider the defendant to have raised a triable issue in relation to the claim for rent payable.

Claim for damages arising from defects and missing items

The claimants’ second head of claim is that the defendant has allegedly breached clause 2(d) of the Tenancy Agreement which states:

In the Statement of Claim at page 2 and in the annexure, the claimants set out a list of defects to the Apartment as well as missing items, which they sought damages to repair and replace. In the course of oral submissions in the present applications, the claimants clarified which defects and items they were pursuing and seeking damages for, and also explained their basis for the sums claimed. The full list of defects and missing items (“Defects and Missing Items”) as well as the claimants’ submissions, which were pursued in the present applications, are set out in Annex A appended below.

The defendant’s pleaded defence is that when she initially rented the Apartment, “it was not in a clean condition as per [her] expectations and the landlord’s obligations” . She also submitted that she has “evidence showing that the state of the place when [she] took over the premises was in a bad condition and very very dirty so much so that [she] had to incur expenses for cleaning, aircon servicing and repairs” .

However, this is not a defence to whether the defendant has breached clause 2(d) of the Tenancy Agreement. The defendant has also not provided any supporting documents showing the state of the premises at the start of both the first and second tenancies, or any evidence of the expenses she allegedly incurred for repairs.

As for the defendant’s oral submissions in respect of the Defects and Missing Items, these can be categorised into three arguments:

(a) First, that the item was already damaged or defective since she moved in, or the item was already missing from the Apartment since she moved in, and therefore the defendant should not pay for it;

(b) Second, the item was not damaged or defective, or that the item was not missing, and therefore the defendant should not pay for it; or

(c) Third, the damage or defect was due to wear and tear, and the defendant is willing to partially compensate for some of the damages or defects that she concedes to.

The defendant’s full position in respect of the Defects and Missing Items is also set out in Annex A appended below.

Having considered parties’ oral arguments and the documentary evidence before me, I am not able to accept the defendant’s submissions.

(a) In respect of the defendant’s claim that items were already damaged or defective or missing since day one, the defendant has not produced any documentary or other evidence (for example, photographic evidence of the damaged or defective items, or communications with the estate agent to enquire about missing items) to support this allegation. The defendant’s position is curious especially since the missing items include an entire set of patio furniture comprising one table and two chairs, and a microwave. It is surprising that the defendant did not inform anyone or raise any questions about these missing items when going through the inventory list (which was signed by both the defendant and the estate agent) at the time she took over the Apartment.

(b) Where the defendant claims that the alleged Defects or Missing Items are in fact not damaged, defective or missing, no supporting documents or other evidence have been provided. Again, these bare assertions are unsupported by any evidence and I cannot accept the same.

(c) Further, insofar the defendant claims that some damages or defects are due to wear and tear and that she should only be liable for half or part of the replacement and repair costs, this is inconsistent. Either the damage and defect is within the expectations of regular wear and tear, or the damage and defect was caused by the defendant, in which case she would be liable to pay for damages. In any event, no supporting documents, photographic evidence or any form of expert evidence has been produced by the defendant to prove that the defects were within the usual expected wear and tear, and I cannot accept the defendant’s submissions on the same.

The defendant’s unsupported assertions are further contradicted by the affidavit and documentary evidence from Ms Christina Lim, the estate agent who handled the lease arrangements as well as the handovers at the start and the end of the subject tenancy. In this regard, Ms Christina Lim has stated on affidavit that before handing over the property to the defendant tenant at the start of the tenancy, she had prepared an inventory list after carefully inspecting the property, noted any existing defects or discrepancies in the inventory list, and this inventory list was signed by both her and the defendant. The inventory list clearly lists out the items that the defendant claims were missing since day one, such as “1 balcony table with 2 chairs” and “1 microwave oven”.

However, in the course of the present applications, the claimants have fully itemised their claims for damages for the Defects and Missing Items, and also put forth their supporting evidence for the sums claimed. Having reviewed the documentary evidence put before me in the present applications, I am of the view that the sum of damages awarded should be adjusted from $13,085 (i.e. the damages sum in the Default Judgment in respect of the Defects and Missing Items ) to $11,657, which, in my view, the claimants have substantiated and proven in the present applications. The full list of Defects and Missing Items, as well as my findings on the same, are set out in the appended Annex A.

Claim for damages arising from air-conditioning

Finally, the claimants seek damages for breach of clause 2(o) of the Tenancy Agreement, which states:

The defendant’s pleaded defence is that she is not in breach of clause 2(o) as the air-conditioning system in the Apartment had “ongoing issues from the start of tenancy”, and although she made multiple requests to the landlord, through the estate agent, to replace the air-conditioning units, her requests were not addressed .

On the other hand, the estate agent, Ms Christina Lim, has stated on affidavit that following the defendant’s report about issues with the air-conditioning, the claimant landlords took steps to repair the air-conditioning, and the issue was successfully resolved with a few days of it being reported. The claimants have also produced a whatsapp communication between the defendant and Ms Christina Lim where the defendant confirmed that all bedroom air-conditionings were functioning, and further submitted that after this issue in May 2020, the tenant did not report any significant problems with the air-conditioning system throughout the lease .

However, the crux of the issue is whether the defendant has shown that she is not in breach of clause 2(o) of the Tenancy Agreement, i.e. whether the air conditioners in the Apartment were serviced and maintained once every three months, which includes gas top-up as and when necessary.

In this regard, the defendant has produced numerous receipts for air-conditioning servicing and gas top-ups during the tenancy period . The full list of invoices is set out in the appended table at Annex B below. However, the documents show that between 1 May 2020 to 11 August 2021 (a period of one year and three months), servicing and maintenance was done only twice, on 4 May 2020 and 31 December 2020. This is in breach of clause 2(o), which requires the tenant to service and maintain all air-conditioners in the Apartment at least “once every three months”.

Further, it is not clear whether servicing and maintenance was done regularly since May 2022 until the end of the tenancy, 30 April 2023. While the defendant has produced a receipt by Hong Yuan Air-Conditioning Engineering for “one year four times… normal servicing from May 2022 to May 2023”, the receipt states that this is for “4 units” only, whereas there are 5 air-conditioning units in the Apartment. It is not clear that this receipt is in respect of the air-conditioners in the Apartment. This is reinforced by the fact that the defendant has produced receipts by another company, High Cool Air Conditioning, for maintenance in 6 September 2022, and for gas top-ups in September, October and December 2022. If the defendant already had a contract with Hong Yuan Air-Conditioning Engineering for servicing and maintenance, why did the defendant pay for normal maintenance by High Cool Air Conditioning on 6 September 2022. No explanation has been provided by the defendant whether in her pleadings, affidavits or submissions.

In the circumstances, I am unable to agree that any triable issues were raised in respect of the claim that the defendant has breached clause 2(o) of the Tenancy Agreement.

Conclusion

For all these reasons, I find that the defendant has not raised any defence on merits to set aside the Default Judgment that was entered against her. However, as previously mentioned, the Default Judgments shall be varied so that the amount of damages payable under the second head of claim is altered from $13,075 to $11,657. In the circumstances, the two applications are dismissed but the Default Judgment is varied in accordance with the following terms:

“1. The Defendant is to pay to the Claimants damages in the sum of $15,495 (this comprises of the $4,638 April 2023 rental and 1 month interest, $11,657 for repairs and replacements, $6,100 for air-conditioning repairs and replacements, less rental deposit of $6,900).

2. The Defendant is to pay to the Claimants costs of this action fixed by the court at $4,500 all-in.”

Teo Wei LingDeputy Registrar

(a) Refrigerator beyond repair; door not able to close