The plaintiffs are landlords of three blocks of apartments situate at Ardmore Park, and the defendants, during the period October 15, 1979 to February 29, 1984 were the tenants of the plaintiffs of one of the apartments, namely: Unit 02–09 situate on the second floor of the block of apartments known as the "Langkawi". In respect of this apartment, three successive tenancy agreements had been entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendants covering the period. The first tenancy agreement dated November 5, 1979 created a term of 24 months commencing from October 15, 1979, and on the expiry thereof, the second tenancy agreement dated October 21, 1981 was made for a similar term of 24 months commencing from October 15, 1981. Immediately prior to the expiry of the second tenancy agreement, the parties negotiated for a renewal of the term for a further period of 12 months commencing October 15, 1983, and accordingly, the third tenancy agreement dated December 31, 1983 expressed to cover this period was made between them. The three tenancy agreements contained substantially the same terms and conditions, save and except that the rent paid under the first tenancy agreement was much less than those paid under the two later tenancy agreements.

After the commencement of the term under the third tenancy agreement, the defendants, by a letter dated December 28, 1983, informed the plaintiffs that their managing director, A.J. Pearson, who had been occupying the apartment, would be returning to the United Kingdom permanently in March 1984 and gave two months' notice determining the tenancy. That notice presumably was given under clause 14 of the tenancy agreement, though it did not expressly say so. The plaintiffs by their letter of January 3, 1984 rejected this notice, stating that the defendants could not avail themselves of clause 14 to determine the tenancy. Notwithstanding the rejection of their notice, the defendants on February 29, 1984, delivered possession of the apartment to the plaintiffs, which was accepted without prejudice to the respective rights of the parties.

On April 9, 1984, the plaintiffs took out this onginating summons seeking for the determination of the following question, namely: whether upon the true construction of the tenancy agreement dated December 31, 1983 ("the Tenancy Agreement") and made between the plaintiffs and the defendants, and in the events which have happened, the tenancy granted thereunder was determinable by notice given by the defendants. The issue before me is purely one of construction of clause 14 of the Tenancy Agreement which reads as follows:

"14. In the event of the Tenant being required by the Immigration or other governmental authority or by any law or regulations or having for vocational reasons to leave the Republic of Singapore either permanently or for a foreseeable period of not less than one year (strict proof whereof shall be supplied by the Tenant to the Landlord) the tenancy hereby created may be terminated by the Tenant giving to the Landlord at least two(2) calendar months prior notice in writing or by the Tenant paying to the Landlord two(2) calendar months rent and service charge in lieu of such notice. Subjest to the proviso that the lease would have commenced for 6 months prior to the service of notice."

For completeness I have set out above the proviso to clause 14 which had been expressly deleted, though nothing really turns on this proviso or its deletion.

As evident from this clause, the problem is centred on the word "Tenant" in the first line of the clause. Mr. Loh on behalf of the plaintiffs submitted that the word "Tenant" means the defendants and not an employee or officer of the defendants. He pointed out that the terms "Tenant" and "Occupiers" have each been defined in the Tenancy Agreement: "Tenant" has been defined at the commencement of the Tenancy Agreement to mean the defendants and "Occupiers" has been defined in clause 5(xviii) thereof. Cla