JUDGMENTBY: AMBROSE J

This is an application under section 13 (1) of the Control of Rent Ordinance (Cap. 242) by Hin Seng and Company, who are aggrieved by a decision of the Rent Conciliation Board on the ground that it is wrong in law. I will call the applicants Hin Seng. The respondents are SEAC Company. I will call them SEAC.

SEAC are the tenants of the ground and first floors of the premises known as No. 11 Phillip Street, Singapore, the rent of the two floors being$ 137.50 per month. They sublet an unfurnished room on the ground floor of the premises to Hin Seng at a rent of $ 190 per month, inclusive of municipal charges, commencing from the 16th September, 1955. In Application No. 41 of 1962, Hin Seng applied to the Rent Conciliation Board for determination of the rent of the sublet room. On the 3rd July, 1962, the Board fixed the rent of the room at $ 35 per month, inclusive of municipal charges, with effect from the 1st July, 1962. In Suit No. 1039 of 1962, Hin Seng sought to recover from SEAC the difference between $ 190 and $ 35 per month for the period of 81 months from the 16th September, 1955, to the 15th June, 1962, but they were unsuccessful. In Application No. 169 of 1964, SEAC applied to the Board under section 11(a) of the Control of Rent Ordinance to vary the order made in Application No. 41 of 1962.

Section 11 of the Ordinance provides as follows:--

"An order of the Board may be reviewed, varied or set aside by the

Board in the following cases, namely:--

(a) where the facts of the case affecting the question of rent have

materially altered since the order was made;

(b) where the order was made in consequence of any fraud,

misrepresentation or mistake;

It was argued by counsel for SEAC before the Board that in the High Court suit it was not disputed between the parties that the room in question was let separately for the first time on the 16th September, 1955; that this point was not brought to the notice of the Board when it heard Application No. 41 of 1962; that, according to the statutory definitions of "premises" and "standard rent", the standard rent of the room was the rent at which it was first let separately, which was $ 190 per month; and that the rent of the room must, therefore, be restored to the figure of $ 190 per month.

It was argued by counsel for Hin Seng before the Board that there was no evidence that the facts of the case affecting the question of rent had materially altered since the order was made by the Board on the 3rd July, 1962; and that order should not be varied as the Board had no jurisdiction to vary it under section 11(a).

The Board relied on section 9(1) (b) of the Ordinance which reads as follows:--

"The Board shall have and may exercise the following powers, namely:--

(b) to make orders fixing such rent at a figure equal to, below, or

above the current or standard rent as to the Board may seem just

and proper; or to refuse to make any such order; and from time to

time to review, vary, or set aside any order made by it, as

provided in section 11:

The Board decided that it had jurisdiction under section 11(b) of the Ordinance to consider the application. Section 11(b) is set out above. The Board apparently took the view that the order of the 3rd July, 1962, was made in consequence of a mistake, because the question of the first separate letting of the room was not brought to its notice in Application No. 41 of 1962 and the standard rent of the room was the rent at which it was first let separaely, namely, $ 190 per month, as was clear from the decision in Harwood & Anor v Perreau [1955] MLJ 56. The Board accordingly restored the rent of the room to the figure of $ 190 per month with effect from the 1st February, 1965.

Counsel for SEAC submits that the order of the 3rd July, 1962, was made by the Board in consequence of a mistake, because it was not brou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document