Ambrose J:

This is an application under s. 13(1) of the Control of Rent Ordinance (Cap. 242) by Hin Seng and Co, 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 Co. 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 16 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 3 July 1962 the Board fixed the rent of the room at $35 per month, inclusive of municipal charges, with effect from 1 July 1962. In SuitNo. 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 16 September 1955 to 15 June 1962 but they were unsuccessful. In Application No. 169 of 1964 SEAC applied to the Board under s. 11(a) of the Control of Rent Ordinance (Cap. 242) 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 16 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 3 July 1962; and that order should not be varied as the Board had no jurisdiction to vary it under s. 11(a).

The Board relied on s. 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 s. 11:

The Board decided that it had jurisdiction under s. 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 3 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 separately, 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 1 February 1965.

Counsel for SEAC submits that the order of 3 July 1962 was made by the Board in consequence of a mistake, because it was not brought to the notice of the Board when it heard Application No. 41 of 1962 that the room in question was let separately for the first time on 16 September 1955; and that, if that fact had been brought to the notice of the Board, it would not