ROYAL & SONS ORGANISATION PTE. LTD. v HOTEL CALMO CHINATOWN PTE. LTD.
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (9)
Case Significance
Royal & Sons Organisation Pte Ltd v Hotel Calmo Chinatown Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 248 was decided by Kwek Mean Luck J in the General Division of the High Court in Originating Claim No 216 of 2023, heard on 2-5, 9 and 16 September 2024 with judgment reserved and delivered on 30 September 2024. The claimant, Royal & Sons Organisation Pte Ltd ("Royal"), a Singapore-incorporated property investment company, owns the premises known as #01-01 & #01-12, 25 Trengganu Street, Singapore 058476. The defendant, Hotel Calmo Chinatown Pte Ltd ("Calmo"), is a Singapore-incorporated company in the hotel business that was formerly known as K Hotel Advisors Pte Ltd until it changed its name on 8 June 2021.
The dispute concerned the landlord-and-tenant relationship between Royal and Calmo, raising issues of breach of the tenant's covenants, forfeiture of the lease on grounds including repudiatory breach of the tenancy agreement and the prohibition against assignment, subletting and parting with or sharing possession of the demised premises, and the requirements for forfeiture under sections 18(1) and 18(8) of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act. The claim also raised recovery of possession and double rent chargeable for the duration of holding over, the latter engaging the Civil Law Act. Royal was represented by counsel from Davinder Singh Chambers LLC, including Jaikanth Shankar, Tan Ruo Yu, Tanmanjit Singh Sidhu s/o Karam Jeet Singh and Waverly Seong Hall Ee, while Calmo was represented by counsel from Foo & Quek LLC, including Ho Kin Onn, Ng Lip Chih and Tan Jinwen Mark (Chen Jinwen).
[2024] SGHC 248 explained
ROYAL & SONS ORGANISATION PTE. LTD. v HOTEL CALMO CHINATOWN PTE. LTD. ([2024] SGHC 248) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 30 September 2024. It is categorised under Landlord and Tenant. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 2 other reported Singapore judgments, a measure of how often later decisions have referred to it. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.
What is [2024] SGHC 248 about?
ROYAL & SONS ORGANISATION PTE. LTD. v HOTEL CALMO CHINATOWN PTE. LTD. ([2024] SGHC 248) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2024. Its published catchwords are “Landlord and Tenant — Covenants — Breach of tenant’s covenants”, “Landlord and Tenant — Termination of leases — Forfeiture — Repudiatory breach of the tenancy agreement”, “Landlord and Tenant — Recovery of possession — Holding over — Double rent chargeable for duration of holding over”, and “Landlord and Tenant — Termination of leases — Forfeiture — Requirements under s 18(1) of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2024] SGHC 248 consider?
The judgment refers to Civil Law Act (Cap 43) and Conveyancing and Law of Property Act (Cap 61). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2024] SGHC 248 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2024] SGHC 108. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
How influential is [2024] SGHC 248?
Within this corpus, [2024] SGHC 248 has been cited by 2 later reported Singapore judgments. That count reflects references from other decisions held in this corpus only and is a conservative lower bound on how often the case has actually been cited.
Summary
Royal & Sons Organisation Pte Ltd, the owner of premises at Trengganu Street, leased to Hotel Calmo Chinatown Pte Ltd under a six-year tenancy agreement, sought forfeiture of the lease and double rent under s 28(4) of the Civil Law Act, alleging breaches of the tenant's covenants, while Calmo advanced a counterclaim. Kwek Mean Luck J allowed Royal's claim for forfeiture on the ground that Calmo had breached cl 2(22) of the tenancy agreement, holding that Royal was entitled to forfeit the security deposit and to possession, together with double rent until possession was returned. The court found that "structure" in the tenancy agreement did not cover escalators and dismissed Calmo's counterclaim.
What did Royal & Sons Organisation Pte Ltd v Hotel Calmo Chinatown Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 248 concern?
[2024] SGHC 248 concerned a landlord-and-tenant dispute over premises at 25 Trengganu Street, Singapore. Kwek Mean Luck J addressed breach of the tenant's covenants, forfeiture for repudiatory breach and under sections 18(1) and 18(8) of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, and double rent for holding over.
Which statutory provisions on forfeiture were raised in [2024] SGHC 248?
In Royal & Sons Organisation Pte Ltd v Hotel Calmo Chinatown Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 248, the forfeiture issues engaged the requirements under section 18(1) and the prohibition on assignment, subletting and sharing possession under section 18(8) of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (12)
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2024] SGHC 248)