Siew Soon Wah & Ors.

v Yong Tong Hong

Significance:

Specific performance can be

granted solely on the ground that the agreement, not being so vague and uncertain as to be void for uncertainty, whereby there is a valid agreement capable to be enforced.

Brief Material Facts

Appellant (Yong) was a tenant of the entire ground floor of premises No.61 Jalan Pasar Bharu, Kuala Lumpur, since 1958 (the said land). The predecessor of the respondent (Siew Kim Chong The father of the respondent) asked the appellant to pay $8000 Malayan Currency on his behalf to a building contractor upon the completion of renovation of the building. Yong later let into occupation of the ground floor at the rent of $150 per month. Later, the rent was increased by Siew Soon Wah (respondent) to $ 200 on April 9, 1964. On October 4, 1966, the landlord gave notice of termination on Yongs tenancy on November 30, 1966 unless he accepted a new tenancy from December 1 at $ 300 per month. The dispute arose when Yong rejected the offer.

Issues:
1. Whether the written agreement was valid and enforceable 2. Whether the aforementioned amount paid to the building contractor has the same significant meaning with the wording in the agreement as long as the tenant wishes to occupy

Decision
tenancy shall be permanent

In their Lordships opinion, the agreement was not vague and uncertain as to be void for uncertainty. Intention was clear that the landlord should let the premises to the respondent for as long a period as it was within his power to do so and he cannot eject the respondent so long as he paid the rent. The respondent should be entitled to occupy the property so long as he wished and so long as he paid rent However, tenancy only valid not more than 30 years by virtue of Section 47 of the Land Code 1928 and Section 221(3) of NLC Act No. 56 of 1965.

Whether respondent entitled to specific performance

Yes- Tenants right to possession would be enforced in equity. This is because respondent occupied the ground floor since February 1958 and paid rent therefor. Then he paid the sum of $8000 to his landlord. He cannot have done that for a tenancy for a short duration. Therefore, there is a equitable estoppel protecting the respondent