Ambrose J:

This was a claim for possession of the ground floor premises known as No. 363, Joo Chiat Road, Singapore. Originally there were three defendants, but, as the third defendant had not been served with the writ and had ceased to reside in the premises, his name was ordered to be struck out from the title to the proceedings.

It was not disputed that the premises were let by the plaintiff in 1951 to VP Anjapillay, the first husband of the first defendant; that his contractual monthly tenancy was determined on 30 April 1956, by a notice to quit dated 29 February 1956; that he became a statutory tenant thereafter; and that he died on 16 May 1958.

It was proved that the first defendant was residing in the premises with her two children by the deceased on 16 May 1958; that she married her first husband in 1952; that she had been residing in the premises from 1952 except for a few months in 1958; that she married the second defendant in 1959; and that she was residing in the premises at the date of the hearing of this action with the second defendant, her child by him, and her two children by her first husband.

Counsel for the plaintiff contended that the first and second defendants were trespassers but conceded that the first defendant was protected by s. 16 of the Control of Rent Ordinance, if the premises were domestic premises. Section 2 of the Ordinance defines "domestic premises" as "a building or part of a building used wholly or chiefly as a separate dwelling."

The question which fell to be considered was, therefore, whether the premises were used chiefly as a separate dwelling not only at the date of the death of the first defendant's first husband but also at the date of the hearing of this action. The ground floor excluding the five-foot way is 78 feet long. The front portion consists of a large room 43 feet long. The rear portion, which is 35 feet long, consists of a kitchen, a bathroom, and a lavatory. At both the material dates, the front part of the large room was used as a sundry goods shop, while the remaining part of the room and the rear portion of the premises were used as a dwelling. Of the total length of 78 feet, the shop took up 23 feet. As 700f the floor space was thus used as a dwelling, it seemed to me that the premises were used to a greater extent for dwelling purposes. For this reason I came to the conclusion that the premises were used chiefly as a separate dwelling at both the material dates.

In my opinion, the first defendant was protected by s. 16 of the Ordinance. As the second defendant was her second husband, I failed to see how he could be treated as a trespasser.

I therefore dismissed the claim and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant the costs of the action.

Claim dismissed.