Yong Pung How CJ:

This was an appeal against the decision of Chan Sek Keong J in which he dismissed the claim of the appellants for declarations and an injunction against the respondents relating to a car parking scheme in a housing estate called Chancery Court. At the conclusion of the hearing we dismissed the appeal with costs. We now give our reasons.

The facts have been set out in great detail in the judgment of Chan Sek Keong J: [1989] 3 MLJ 400, and may be briefly summarised as follows. Chancery Court has a number of shopping units and about 150 residential units. The appellants are a monthly tenant of a shopping unit known as Block 36H, Dunearn Road #0144, Singapore 1130 where they operate a supermarket. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the appellants undertook to use the premises as a supermarket and for no other purposes. The first respondent is a body corporate comprising the owners of all the units of Chancery Court, and the second to the thirteenth respondents were at the material time members of the management committee of the first respondent which managed the housing estate.

On 19 April 1987, at the extraordinary general meeting of the first respond