Vivek Kapoor and another v Zhang Xiaoshi

Mr Vivek Kapoor and Mrs Richa Kapoor leased an apartment to Ms Zhang Xiaoshi from 1 May 2020, and a second tenancy agreement extended the lease until 30 April 2023. It was undisputed that the lease expired then and that the landlords held a $6,900 security deposit. In Magistrate Court Suit No 2139 of 2024 the landlords claimed damages, alleging that the tenant failed to pay April 2023 rent, failed to keep the apartment in good repair, and failed to have the air-conditioners serviced as the agreement required.

The tenant's pleaded defence was that there was a "mutually verbally agreed-upon arrangement" to set the deposit off against the last month's rent, that the apartment was not clean when she moved in, and that the air-conditioning had problems from the start which the landlords were responsible for. She did not attend a case conference on 10 July 2024, so her defence was dismissed and judgment entered against her for damages of $16,923 and costs of $4,500. She then filed two identical applications to set the judgment aside.

1. Whether the tenant showed a triable defence to the claim for April 2023 rent
2. Whether she raised a triable issue on the claim for repairs and missing items
3. Whether she showed she had complied with the air-conditioner servicing clause

It was not disputed that the judgment was regular, so the tenant had to show a prima facie defence raising triable issues.

On rent, her affidavits said nothing about the alleged set-off arrangement, the tenancy agreement expressly barred using the deposit against rent, and she said at the hearing that she withheld the last month's rent because she feared the deposit would not be refunded. The arrangement was a bare assertion contradicted by the documents.

On repairs and missing items, her complaint about the flat's cleanliness at the start was no defence to the repair obligation. Her claims that items were already damaged or missing, were not damaged, or reflected only wear and tear were unsupported by any evidence and contradicted by the inventory list she signed at handover and by the estate agent's evidence. Her offer to pay part of some costs was inconsistent with a wear-and-tear defence. The landlords had, however, itemised and proved their figures during the applications, and the deputy registrar adjusted the sum to what they had substantiated.

On the air-conditioners, the clause required servicing once every three months. The tenant's own receipts showed servicing only on 4 May 2020 and 31 December 2020 before August 2021, and a later servicing receipt covered only "4 units" when the flat had five, alongside unexplained maintenance by a different firm. No triable issue arose.

Deputy Registrar Teo Wei Ling dismissed both applications, finding no defence on the merits. The judgment was varied, however, to reduce the repairs and missing items award to $11,657, so that the tenant was ordered to pay damages of $15,495 and costs of $4,500. Costs of the applications were to be fixed by the court.