The plaintiff is a subsidiary proprietor of the housing estate known as Eastern Lagoon Condominium II. By this originating summons, he seeks a declaration that a set of house rules made by the Management Corporation Strata Title No. 1075, the defendant herein, is ultra vires the Land Titles (Strata) Act (Cap. 158, 1985 Ed.) ("the Act") and accordingly the house rules are void and of no legal effect. The plaintiff further seeks an injunction to restrain the defendant from enforcing the house rules on the plaintiff, his family and servants.

The only ground put forward by the plaintiff to question the propriety of the house rules is that they were not made by the management corporation in accordance with the procedure laid down in section 35(4) of the Act.

In the correspondence between the plaintiff and the management corporation, the plaintiff has also alleged that the house rules are draconian and were not made in a democratic manner. I will first deal with this aspect of the complaint. From the affidavit filed by one Catherine Chua Gek Choo, the secretary of the management corporation, it would appear that prior to the making of this set of house rules, the developers of the condominium had earlier made similar house rules for the observance of all subsidiary proprietors/occupiers. It was in March 1987 that the council of the management corporation decided to review and revise the then existing house rules. To that end the managing agents, Jones Long Wootton (JLW), were requested by the management corporation to draw up a new set of house rules. The draft put up by JLW was considered at the 4th council meeting on May 8, 1987. The council decided to send the draft to the house rules sub-committee for further consideration. In June 1987, the house rules sub-committee submitted an amended draft to the council. This draft was circulated to the subsidiary proprietors for their comments and they were given two weeks to do so. Only four persons responded. The plaintiff was not one of the four. Except for some minor amendments, the draft, as circulated, was accepted by the council. All subsidiary proprietors were informed by a letter dated August 20, 1987 that the house rules would be implemented with effect from September 7, 1987.

In a further circular of September 7, 1987, all subsidiary proprietors were invited to give further feedback on the house rules within a period of three weeks to enable the management corporation to consider the need for any change or revision. I feel it important to quote the first three paragraphs of that circular, which are as follows:

"The new house rules and screening procedures for visitors, renovation contractors etc. will be implemented effective today. In anticipation of the problems arising from changes in certain rules that residents may face, we invite residents to give any further feedback in writing to the council within three weeks from the above date.

Your house rules sub-committee will consider and review your suggestions at the next meeting. Should amendment to the new house rules be necessary, this will be done at the soonest time possible. Residents will be informed accordingly.

Your council has received and noted some verbal suggestions from residents on the new house rules. Some of these constructive suggestions will be carefully considered and if appropriate will be implemented in a month's time or so. We would like to express appreciation to these residents and look forward to their continuous support."

Three days later on September 10, the management corporation received a letter from the plaintiff dated September 7, wherein he alleged that the booking rules for the tennis courts were "draconian" and "undemocratic and unfair". Following that, the plaintiff's solicitors also wrote on September 15 to allege that the management corporation has acted in excess of its powers in making the house rules.

In view of the protest by the plaintiff, though belated, the managemen