Century Housing Services Pte Ltd v Koh Chiep Chong(Xu Jiecong)

Facts

Century Housing Services Pte Ltd, which rents out co-living spaces, had been the tenant of a condominium unit at 2 Kitchener Link since 2018. Its third tenancy agreement ran from 15 September 2022 to 14 September 2024. Koh Chiep Chong, a property agent, bought the unit subject to that tenancy, completing on 6 June 2023. Clause 2(k) of each tenancy agreement prohibited the tenant from subletting or parting with possession of the premises or any part of them without the landlord's written consent. It was agreed that the tenant rented rooms to short-term sub-tenants and that a fifth room had been created with a gypsum board partition.

On 7 June 2023 the defendant posted notices to quit, and on 16 June 2023 he went to the unit and demanded that the occupants leave, which it was agreed ended the tenancy. In Magistrate Court Originating Claim No 5281 of 2023, the claimant sued for wrongful termination, limited to $60,000. It said the previous landlord had agreed to or waived the subletting and partitions, or acquiesced in them. The defendant said he was entitled to terminate for illegal subletting and counterclaimed $21,120 for reinstatement costs, loss of use and a pro-rated agent's commission, to be set off against the $5,600 deposit he held.

Issues

1. Whether the defendant was entitled to terminate the tenancy on 16 June 2023 for subletting in breach of clause 2(k).
2. Whether waiver or acquiescence by the previous landlord prevented the defendant from relying on the breach.
3. Whether the defendant proved the damages claimed in his counterclaim.

Holding

The court dismissed the claim and allowed the counterclaim only to the extent of $3,500 for the pro-rated commission, to be deducted from the $5,600 rental deposit, with the balance of $2,100 refunded to the claimant. Costs were to be agreed or fixed by the court.

Reasoning

On termination, the court found the premises were clearly sublet: the claimant's own witness said she rented the whole unit to five tenants, and their names differed from the permitted occupants listed in the agreement. The court rejected the argument that clause 2(k) only barred subletting the whole unit, calling the idea that the unit could be sublet room by room against common sense. If subletting rooms mattered to its business, the claimant should have changed the clause. The notice of 7 June 2023 was defective for lack of particulars under section 18 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act 1886, but nothing turned on this because the termination on 16 June 2023 was for illegal subletting.

On waiver and acquiescence, clause 4(i) said a waiver of one breach was not a waiver of later breaches. Even if the previous landlord had waived compliance, the defendant, standing in his shoes, could decide whether to continue it, and no written waiver was produced. There was no evidence that the defendant stood by and led the claimant to think he consented; the subletting and partition already existed when he viewed the unit, and he acted quickly after completion.

On the counterclaim, the court was not satisfied that the reinstatement costs and the month's loss of use were proven, as the defendant then lived in the unit, it was unclear how much of the work was reinstatement rather than renovation, and no contractors gave evidence. The commission refund was allowed under the agreement, since the claimant could not rely on the agreement for its own claim yet reject it when it did not help.

From the judgment