I find for the plaintiff. The evidence clearly shows that the Government of Singapore committed a breach of the tenancy agreement when they terminated the plaintiff's tenancy of the shop in question. I accept the plaintiff's evidence that if not for the assurance given by the Director of Civil Aviation in his letter of June 27, 1975, that so long as the plaintiff carefully observed "the rules and regulations" of the tenancy agreement he could consider his tenancy as secure for the period in question, he would not have entered into the said agreement. By giving this assurance the Director of Civil Aviation bound the Government of Singapore not to invoke the termination clause so long as the plaintiff carried out his obligations under the tenancy agreement. The effect of this assurance was that the Government of Singapore could invoke clause 4(i) of the agreement only when the plaintiff had committed some breach of the tenancy agreement.

The Government, having accepted the plaintiff's exercise of his option, the tenancy agreement was renewed and was in force for a further period of three years as from February 1, 1975 but on January 31, 1975 the Government purported to terminate the tenancy by invoking clause 4(i) and giving the plaintiff three months' notice. The tenancy was renewed with effect from February 1, 1975 on the same terms and conditions which applied to the first term of three years. This meant that the Government could terminate the second term of three years only when they found the plaintiff had committed some breach of the tenancy agreement. On January 31, 1975 when the Government purported to terminate the second term by invoking clause 4(i), the plaintiff had not committed any breach of the tenancy agreement. In fact the second term had not yet commenced. It commenced on February 1, 1975, but the notice to terminate the second term was given on January 31, 1975. The Government had no valid grounds at all to terminate the second term and dispossess the plaintiff. In my judgment, on the factual evidence in this case, which is not in dispute, the plaintiff is entitled to damages for the loss suffered by him for not being allowed to operate his shop for a period of 2 years and 9 months.

It is submitted that the plaintiff can only recover his personal loss and that as the shop operated by him was a partnership business he could not recover the loss suffered by his brother, the other partner. I am unable to accept this submission. The plaintiff is the party to the tenancy agreement. This claim is brought by him as the lessee. What arrangement he had in regard to the sharing of the profits with his brother who helped him to operate the shop is irrelevant on the question of liability.

The real difficulty in this case is the assessment of damages for the loss suffered by the plaintiff. If the plaintiff had continued to operate his shop for the period in respect of which he is entitled to damages, he would have had competition from the other shop set up by the Singapore Airport Duty-Free Emporium (Pte.) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Emporium"). The Emporium shop was situated right in front of the plaintiff's shop. Passengers arriving at the arrival hall and going through the immigration check point would first reach the Emporium shop. It is submitted that the bulk of the business would have gone to the Emporium shop. I do not think this is very correct. The number of passengers arriving in modern planes is very large and passengers are always in a hurry to leave the airport as soon as possible. If a plane load of 100 passengers goes through the check point I cannot imagine all of them queuing up to be dealt with at the Emporium shop. In my opinion they would all scramble for early attention at both shops which were adjacent to each other. Both the shops were so close to each other that a passenger may think both were part of the same establishment. In my judgment the business would have been more