Knight J:

In this action the plaintiff claims possession of the ground and first floors of No. 16 Carpenter Street, Singapore, which premises are being occupied by the defendants.Notice to quit was served on the defendants on 29 March 1949 but after the expiry of the notice they remained in occupation as statutory tenants and subsequently, on 31 August 1953, a further notice to quit was served upon them; this also they disregarded and they are still in occupation and possession of the premises.

Neither the facts nor the law, in this case, are simple and as I am informed that this is the first of what may well be a series of similar cases, I propose to deal with the history of the matter in some detail.

On 17 September 1947 (the earlier transactions not being relevant) the Commissioner of Lands agreed to grant a 99 years lease (running from 1 May 1941) to a Mdm Sim Gek Keow in respect of No. 16 and part of No. 15 Carpenter Street.Amongst other terms the ground rent was fixed at $597 per annum; the existing building was to be demolished and a new building was to be constructed within two years from 1 September 1947.On 24 March 1949 Mdm Sim assigned to the plaintiff all her interest under the lease (with the consent of the Commissioner of Lands) for a consideration of $22,000 and on 29 March 1949 the plaintiff gave notice to the defendants to quit the premises as he, of course, was bound by the same conditions as to demolition and rebuilding as Mdm Sim had been.As noted above the defendants ignored this notice and on 27 May 1949 the plaintiff's solicitors wrote to the Commissioner of Lands explaining his inability to comply with the terms of the lease and asking for an extension of time within which to do so. This, somewhat grudgingly, was afforded by the Commissioner of Lands but in answer to yet a further application for an extension, he wrote on 21 February 1951, that he was prepared to recommend to Government that the plaintiff be granted a new lease of 99 years from 1 January 1951 on similar demolition and rebuilding conditions but that ground rent should be increased to $1,839 per annum.No reason was given for this substantial increase in ground rent and the decision appears to have been a most arbitrary one; the plaintiff, however, had no alternative but to accept and on 3 April 1951 entered into an agreement with the Government in which the terms and conditions of the lease were embodied (p. 20 Exh. AB). Thereafter ground rent at the new enhanced rate was duly paid, but owing to the provision of the Control of Rent Ordinance, 1947, no steps could be taken to evict the defendants who have regularly paid, or offered, rent and a hopeless stalemate ensued leaving the plaintiff with no alternative but periodically to apply for an extension of time, which, to date, has always been granted to him.

It will thus be seen that through circumstances which were entirely beyond his control the unfortunate plaintiff, having paid a large sum of money for Mdm Sim's interest in this property, is quite unable to reap any benefit from it - save his rent - and is faced on the one hand with the steady deterioration of the building and on the other, with the constant threat from the Commissioner of Lands that no further time would be granted within which to demolish and rebuild.He has the further difficulty to face - namely that if the Commissioner of Lands should refuse an application for an extension of time, he will lose all rights under his agreement and, of course, the sum of $22,000 which he has paid to Mdm Sim.

No doubt to meet this and other unsatisfactory situations, the new Control of Rent Ordinance 1953 was passed into law and this action has been brought under s. 15(1)(k) - the plaintiff now claiming possession on the grounds that he intends to demolish the building and that such demolition is "necessary in the interests of public health or town improvement."

In support of this contention the plaintiff called several witnesse