HVS PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED v VINOD EASHWAR

Facts

HVS Properties Private Limited, formerly Sunrita Pte Ltd, sued its former tenant Mr Vinod Eashwar in District Court Originating Claim No 262 of 2022 over a flat at Block 201 Tanjong Rhu Road let under a 2020 tenancy agreement. The registered owner was Mdm Rita Kishinchand Bhojwani. HVS claimed that her father, Mr KT Bhojwani, was the sole beneficial owner and that she held the flat as a bare trustee; it said it had been appointed in 2012 to let the flat and was itself the landlord. It claimed S$8000 in alleged rent arrears for April and May 2022, declarations that the tenancy ended under a notice to vacate of 10 June 2022 and that Mr Eashwar was then a trespasser, and double rent. Mr Eashwar left on 4 July 2022.

Mr Eashwar's case was that Mdm Rita was his landlord and HVS only her agent. In 2022 he received competing demands from HVS, Mdm Rita's brother Mr Sunil, and the solicitor Mr Gaznavi on one side and Mdm Rita's solicitors on the other. On 29 April 2022 he signed a new tenancy with Mdm Rita, who released him from obligations under the 2020 agreement and gave him an indemnity. He counterclaimed against HVS, Mr Sunil, HVS director Ms Win Phyu Shwe and Mr Gaznavi for inducing breach of contract, interfering with his quiet enjoyment, harassment and conspiracy. The ownership of the flat was in dispute in two pending High Court actions, HC/OC 31 and HC/OC 675.

Issues

1. Whether HVS was a party to, or the landlord under, the 2020 tenancy agreement.
2. Whether the defendants in counterclaim induced Mr Eashwar to breach the tenancy or interfered with his quiet enjoyment.
3. Whether a harassment claim was properly before the court.
4. Whether the defendants in counterclaim conspired to injure Mr Eashwar.

Holding

The District Court dismissed both the claim and the counterclaim. Parties were directed to file written submissions on costs within 14 days.

Reasoning

The tenancy agreement named the landlord as Sunrita "on behalf of" Mdm Rita, so on its plain words HVS was not a party in its own right. The 2012 letter of appointment, addressed to an earlier tenant, made HVS only her managing agent. HVS had not proved that Mr KT Bhojwani was the beneficial owner; that question was pending in the High Court, and the passage it relied on in Rita Kishinchand Bhojwani v HVS Properties Pte Ltd and others [2025] SGHC 80 made no finding on it. Nor was there evidence that Mr Eashwar knew of any trust when he signed. HVS therefore lacked standing, and the court expressly made no finding on beneficial ownership.

Mr Eashwar appeared to have abandoned the inducement claim, and it would have failed anyway: under the 2022 release and indemnity he faced no liability to Mdm Rita and suffered no loss. The quiet enjoyment claim failed because, on his own case, none of the four was his landlord or claiming under the landlord, and the covenant protects only against them.

Any harassment claim failed because the common law tort was abolished by the Protection from Harassment Act 2014, he had not sought permission to bring proceedings under it in the District Court and had pleaded no provision of the Act.

On conspiracy, Mr Eashwar gave no particulars or evidence of when or how any agreement was reached, and did not show a shared intention to injure him. Ms Win acted as a director of HVS, and Mr Gaznavi acted as HVS's solicitor delivering letters on 11 and 12 June 2022. Under cross-examination Mr Eashwar accepted that Mr Gaznavi entered with his consent, did not shout, and did not threaten him, only describing possible consequences of not complying.

From the judgment