JTC Corp v Chin Hong Printing Pte Ltd

Choo Han Teck J:

[1] This was the plaintiff’s application for summary judgment. The plaintiff was the landlord; the defendant, the tenant. The plot of land was known as Pte Lot A 18444, at 16 Joo Koon Circle, Jurong Town, Singapore. The defendant had a lease for 30 years, which expired on 5 January 2013. When 5 January 2013 had passed and the defendant had not vacated the premises, after a series of failed negotiations, the plaintiff brought the matter to court.

[3] Before going into the defences raised by the defendant, I will highlight the “option to renew” clause in the lease agreement. This was found in cl 2A of the third schedule, and read as follows:

The clause goes on to elaborate on how the rent for the further term should be calculated. That, however, was not directly relevant for the purpose of the proceedings before me.

[4] As at 6 January 2013, it was undisputed that the first term had come to an end. On 13 February 2012, the defendant applied to renew the lease. The plaintiff rejected the defendant’s application on 12 April 2012. In October 2012, the defendant presented a revised business plan to the plaintiff, together with another application to renew the lease. The plaintiff rejected this too, in a letter to the defendant dated 7 December 2012, but stated that it was “prepared to consider a short extension of stay”. This offer for a stay, elaborated on in paragraphs 5 and 6 of that letter, was to last at most three years, and was priced at a substantially higher rent. On 1 February 2013, the plaintiff offered to extend the lease by six months (with effect from 6 January 2013) at the rate of $30,899.67 per month. On 19 August 2013, the plaintiff offered to extend the lease by three years (with effect from 6 January 2013) at the same rate. Neither of these offers was apparently accepted by the defendant. On 28 November 2013, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant.

[5] The defendant’s main “defences” were as follows:

(a) By inviting counter-proposals, the plaintiff had represented to the defendant that it was prepared to continue negotiations and allow the defendant to remain occupying the premises; and

(b) There was no holding over because the plaintiff had represented by its conduct that the defendant was permitted to remain in the premises in the meantime.

[6] The defendant raised other arguments as well, but those pertained to the matter of quantum of damages (or double rent), and whether the defendant had breached any terms of the lease. Neither of these affected the plaintiff’s prayer for vacant possession.

[7] The two main defences of the defendant (in [5]), which were charitably interpreted by the plaintiff as arguments relating to estoppel, were without merit. There was no representation by the plaintiff that would serve to prevent it from seeking vacant possession. The defendant’s case, that such representation was made out when the plaintiff wrote to the defendant offering to extend the lease, was unmeritorious. This is evident from the correspondence between the parties, as well as the nature of each of the plaintiff’s offers. In any case, the defendant had not accepted, nor even acted on, any of the offers (or the negotiations).

[8] As such, the facts before me were rather simple. The lease had expired. There had been no renewal. These were undisputed by both sides. The plaintiff (landlord) came to court seeking its premises back. In this regard, I thought the plaintiff’s case was indeed a straightforward one. In its other prayers for double rent and interest, I foresaw possible complications. As such, I made the following orders:

(a) Final judgment to plaintiff for defendant to deliver vacant possession of the premises;

(b) Damages and interests to be assessed;

(c) Costs of the summons and action to the plaintiff to be taxed, if not agreed, after the assessment of damages; and

(d) Liberty to apply.

[9] The defendant has since appealed against my decision.