Tenancy disputes in Singapore: deposits, repairs and reinstatement
6 reported judgments · 4 courts · landlord and tenant
Deposits returned · double rent from $40,000 up to $180,000–$220,000/month allowed · only proven loss recovered
Across the leading Singapore tenancy-dispute judgments analysed here, the courts awarded only the loss each party proved: a tenant recovered the $25,557.98 balance of a $29,000 deposit after the landlord proved just $400 of rectification, while double rent for holding over ranged from $40,000 in one case up to commercial rates of $180,000–$220,000 per month where a lease was forfeited, and elsewhere a deposit deduction was cut to a pro-rated commission with the balance refunded. A landlord may deduct from the deposit only what it proves the tenant is liable for, and bears the burden of proving the breach and the loss. These are decided outcomes, on each case's own facts — not a prediction, and not legal advice.
What have Singapore courts decided?
Tenancy disputes in Singapore are decided on the tenancy agreement together with the general law of contract and the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act and Civil Law Act. Small residential claims — for example over the return of a deposit — are commonly heard by the Small Claims Tribunals, whose decisions are not generally published; the judgments below are the decided cases of the Singapore courts (the State Courts and the High Court), which set out how these recurring questions are resolved. The most frequent disputes concern the security deposit, the condition the premises are returned in, and rent after the term ends. A security deposit secures the tenant's obligations; on a lawful end of the tenancy it is refundable less only what the landlord can prove it is entitled to set off — unpaid rent, an agent's commission where the agreement allows it to be deducted, and the cost of making good breaches the tenant is liable for. The landlord, as the party claiming a deduction or a reinstatement cost, bears the burden of proving the breach and the loss. In [2026] SGMC 36 (Chiu Cheuk Man v Wu Jianou) the court applied that allocation to a residential tenancy: the landlord had to prove the tenant had not kept the premises in tenantable repair and yielded them up in like condition, and the tenant then had to prove that any dilapidation was fair wear and tear — damage from normal use or the ordinary action of the elements, reasonable in amount. A repair covenant is construed reasonably and a landlord is not entitled to claim for slight defects; the court allowed only $400 of rectification costs, dismissed the loss-of-rental counterclaim for want of proof and a failure to mitigate, and ordered the balance of the $29,000 deposit — $25,557.98 — returned with interest. The same burden of proof governed the reinstatement claim in [2025] SGHC 212 (Kwon Do Hyeong v Covenson): the landlord had to prove deterioration against the condition at the start and the tenant had to prove fair wear and tear, and because the claimed costs were not clearly linked to the tenant's works the reinstatement counterclaim was dismissed. Where a deposit deduction or reinstatement claim is run, it must be evidenced: in [2026] SGMC 11 (Century Housing Services v Koh Chiep Chong) the landlord's reinstatement claim failed because the works could not be separated from the landlord's own renovation, and only a pro-rated agent's commission was upheld against the deposit, with the balance refunded. After the term ends, a tenant who holds over without the landlord's assent can be liable for double the rent or double the value of the premises for the holding-over period under s 28(4) of the Civil Law Act 1909 — the court allowed double rent of $40,000 on that basis in [2025] SGHC 212, and in the commercial tenancy in [2024] SGHC 248 (Royal & Sons v Hotel Calmo) the court forfeited the lease for breach and allowed double rent at the rates submitted for — $180,000 per month and then $220,000 per month — for the period of holding over. A landlord may also forfeit a lease for breach of covenant, subject to the requirements of s 18(1) of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act and to waiver: in [2025] SGHC(A) 6 (Campbell Hospitality v Marchmont) the Appellate Division held that the landlord had validly determined the tenancy only when it commenced and served its claim, so double rent ran only from that date. Finally, the court awards only the loss that is proven by whichever party asserts it — in [2026] SGDC 117 (Lim Siew Hwa v Loh Kim Hon), a residential tenancy, the landlord's claims succeeded only to a nominal $60 while the tenant's counterclaim for breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment succeeded in a far larger sum. This page reports how Singapore courts have decided these tenancy questions and the relief they have granted; it is reference information about the law, not legal advice.
These are the outcomes Singapore courts reached on each case's own facts (the tenancy terms, the condition of the premises, and the evidence of loss) — reported as data, not a prediction of how any deposit or tenancy dispute would be decided, and not legal advice. Small residential deposit claims are commonly heard by the Small Claims Tribunals, whose decisions are not generally published; these are the decided court judgments. For an assessment of a specific situation, consult a qualified Singapore Advocate & Solicitor.
What Singapore courts decided in each reported judgment. Each row is the outcome in that specific case on its own facts; the full reasoning and a verbatim line from the judgment are in the breakdown below.
| Judgment | Outcome / relief | Source cases |
|---|---|---|
[2025] SGHC(A) 6 · SGHC(A) A landlord's right to forfeit a lease for breach of covenant is subject to s 18(1) of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act and can be waived; the landlord had validly determined the tenancy only on commencement and service of its claim, so double rent under s 28(4) of the Civil Law Act ran only from that date. | Double rent ran only from valid termination (s 28(4) CLA) | |
[2025] SGHC 212 · SGHC On the reinstatement counterclaim the landlord bore the burden of proving deterioration against the condition at the start and the tenant the burden of proving fair wear and tear; the reinstatement counterclaim was dismissed because the claimed costs were not clearly linked to the tenant's works, but the counterclaim for double rent of $40,000 for holding over under s 28(4) of the Civil Law Act was allowed. | Reinstatement counterclaim dismissed; $40,000 double rent allowed | |
[2024] SGHC 248 · SGHC The court allowed forfeiture on the ground that the tenant had breached its covenant, holding that the landlord was entitled to forfeit the security deposit and possession of the premises; the tenant's acceptance-of-rent argument did not waive the breach, and because the tenancy was validly determined with effect from 10 March 2023 the tenant was holding over from that date, so the landlord was entitled to double rent under s 28(4) of the Civil Law Act at the rates submitted for — $180,000 per month and then $220,000 per month — until possession was returned. | Lease forfeited + deposit forfeited; double rent allowed at $180,000–$220,000/month (s 28(4) CLA) | |
[2026] SGDC 117 · SGDC The court awards only the loss that is proven: the landlord's claims succeeded only to a nominal $60 ($50 for the study-table breach and $10 for the grilling breach), while the tenant's counterclaim for breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment succeeded. | Landlord recovered only $60; tenant's quiet-enjoyment counterclaim succeeded | |
[2026] SGMC 36 · SGMC The landlord, claiming reinstatement costs, bore the burden of proving the tenant breached the repair and yielding-up covenants, and the tenant then bore the burden of proving fair wear and tear; the court allowed only $400 of rectification costs plus a pro-rated commission, dismissed the loss-of-rental counterclaim for want of proof and a failure to mitigate, and ordered the balance of the $29,000 deposit — $25,557.98 — returned with interest. | $25,557.98 deposit balance returned (only $400 rectification proven) | |
[2026] SGMC 11 · SGMC The landlord's reinstatement claim failed because the works could not be separated from the landlord's own renovation, and only a pro-rated agent's commission of $3,500 (which the agreement allowed to be deducted from the deposit) was upheld, with the $2,100 balance of the deposit refunded. | Claim dismissed; only $3,500 commission upheld, $2,100 balance refunded |
The judgments, case by case
The Appellate Division (the most senior court in the block) considered forfeiture of a lease for breach of covenant and a landlord's claim to double rent for the tenant holding over after the lease ended.
A landlord's right to forfeit a lease for breach of covenant is subject to s 18(1) of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act and can be waived; the landlord had validly determined the tenancy only on commencement and service of its claim, so double rent under s 28(4) of the Civil Law Act ran only from that date.
“double rent payable pursuant to s 28(4) of the Civil Law Act 1909 (2020 Rev Ed) (“CLA”) on account of Campbell holding over” — [2025] SGHC(A) 6, the judgment
A High Court tenancy dispute in which the landlord counterclaimed for reinstatement costs and for double rent for the holding-over period; the monthly rent was $40,000.
On the reinstatement counterclaim the landlord bore the burden of proving deterioration against the condition at the start and the tenant the burden of proving fair wear and tear; the reinstatement counterclaim was dismissed because the claimed costs were not clearly linked to the tenant's works, but the counterclaim for double rent of $40,000 for holding over under s 28(4) of the Civil Law Act was allowed.
“Covenson counterclaimed double rent amounting to $40,000 during the holding over period pursuant to s 28(4) of the Civil Law Act 1909” — [2025] SGHC 212, the judgment
A commercial tenancy dispute in the General Division of the High Court in which the landlord (Royal) sought forfeiture of the lease for the tenant's (Calmo's) breach of covenant and double rent for the period the tenant held over after the tenancy was determined.
The court allowed forfeiture on the ground that the tenant had breached its covenant, holding that the landlord was entitled to forfeit the security deposit and possession of the premises; the tenant's acceptance-of-rent argument did not waive the breach, and because the tenancy was validly determined with effect from 10 March 2023 the tenant was holding over from that date, so the landlord was entitled to double rent under s 28(4) of the Civil Law Act at the rates submitted for — $180,000 per month and then $220,000 per month — until possession was returned.
“This is at the rate of $180,000 per month from 10 March 2023 to 14 August 2024, and at $220,000 per month from 15 August 2024 until possession of the Premises is returned to Royal.” — [2024] SGHC 248, the judgment
A residential tenancy of a semi-detached house between two individuals, where the landlord claimed for breaches and the tenant counterclaimed for breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment.
The court awards only the loss that is proven: the landlord's claims succeeded only to a nominal $60 ($50 for the study-table breach and $10 for the grilling breach), while the tenant's counterclaim for breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment succeeded.
“the Defendant is to pay the Claimant damages of $60, comprising $50 for the Study Table Breach and $10 for the Grilling Breach” — [2026] SGDC 117, the judgment
A residential tenancy of a condominium unit and the clearest treatment of the fair-wear-and-tear / deposit question; the tenant had paid a $29,000 security deposit and the landlord claimed reinstatement and loss-of-rental costs against it.
The landlord, claiming reinstatement costs, bore the burden of proving the tenant breached the repair and yielding-up covenants, and the tenant then bore the burden of proving fair wear and tear; the court allowed only $400 of rectification costs plus a pro-rated commission, dismissed the loss-of-rental counterclaim for want of proof and a failure to mitigate, and ordered the balance of the $29,000 deposit — $25,557.98 — returned with interest.
“the defendant is liable to return the claimant the balance of $25,557.98” — [2026] SGMC 36, the judgment
A tenancy dispute over a $5,600 security deposit in which the landlord claimed reinstatement costs, loss of use and a pro-rated commission against the deposit.
The landlord's reinstatement claim failed because the works could not be separated from the landlord's own renovation, and only a pro-rated agent's commission of $3,500 (which the agreement allowed to be deducted from the deposit) was upheld, with the $2,100 balance of the deposit refunded.
“the claim is dismissed, and the counterclaim is successful to the extent of $3,500 with the balance $2,100 from the rental deposit to be refunded to the claimant” — [2026] SGMC 11, the judgment
Key questions
Can a landlord in Singapore keep the security deposit for damage, and who has to prove what?
A security deposit secures the tenant's obligations and, on a lawful end of the tenancy, is refundable less only what the landlord proves it is entitled to deduct — such as unpaid rent, an agent's commission the agreement allows to be deducted, and the cost of making good breaches the tenant is liable for. The landlord, as the party claiming the deduction or reinstatement cost, bears the burden of proving the breach and the loss. In [2026] SGMC 36 the court allowed the landlord only $400 of rectification costs and ordered the balance of the $29,000 deposit returned, and in [2026] SGMC 11 a reinstatement claim against the deposit failed for want of proof. This describes how the courts have decided the issue; it is not advice on any particular tenancy.
What counts as fair wear and tear in a Singapore tenancy?
A tenant typically covenants to keep the premises in tenantable repair and to yield them up in the like condition in which they were delivered, "fair wear and tear excepted". As the court explained in [2026] SGMC 36, the landlord must first prove the deterioration or damage as against the condition at the start of the tenancy, and the tenant must then prove that the dilapidation was fair wear and tear — damage caused by normal human use or the ordinary action of the elements and reasonable in amount. The repair covenant is construed reasonably, and a landlord is not entitled to claim for slight defects.
When is a tenant liable for double rent for holding over in Singapore?
Under s 28(4) of the Civil Law Act 1909, a tenant who continues to hold over the premises after the tenancy has ended, without the landlord's assent, can be liable to pay double the rent or double the value of the premises for the holding-over period. In [2025] SGHC 212 the High Court allowed a counterclaim for double rent of $40,000 on that basis; in the commercial tenancy in [2024] SGHC 248 the court forfeited the lease for breach and allowed double rent at the rates submitted for — $180,000 per month and then $220,000 per month; and in [2025] SGHC(A) 6 the Appellate Division held that double rent ran only from the date the landlord validly determined the tenancy.
Are tenancy deposit disputes in Singapore heard by the Small Claims Tribunal?
Smaller residential tenancy claims — including disputes over the return of a deposit — are commonly heard by the Small Claims Tribunals, whose decisions are not generally published as written grounds. The cases reported on this page are instead decided judgments of the State Courts and the High Court, such as [2026] SGMC 36 and [2025] SGHC 212, which set out the legal principles the courts apply to deposits, repairs, reinstatement and holding over. This is a record of how the courts have decided such disputes, not a description of any tribunal's procedure.
Related
landlord and tenant →Source judgments
Every figure on this page is drawn from a reported Singapore judgment. The cases below are the primary sources; each links to its full judgment.
- [2025] SGHC(A) 6 — Campbell Hospitality Pte Ltd & 2 Ors v Marchmont Pte Ltd · primary source
- [2025] SGHC 212 — Kwon Do Hyeong v Covenson Pte Ltd · primary source
- [2024] SGHC 248 — Royal & Sons Organisation Pte. Ltd. v Hotel Calmo Chinatown Pte. Ltd. · primary source
- [2026] SGDC 117 — Lim Siew Hwa v Loh Kim Hon · primary source
- [2026] SGMC 36 — Chiu Cheuk Man v Wu Jianou · primary source
- [2026] SGMC 11 — Century Housing Services Pte Ltd v Koh Chiep Chong(Xu Jiecong) · primary source
Compiled by the SG Case Law editorial team from primary sources — the judgments themselves and Singapore Statutes Online (sso.agc.gov.sg). · Updated 25 June 2026 · How we compile this
Last updated .