Tan Swee Hoe Co. Ltd. V Ali Alin Lh Case Study

970 Words4 Pages
CITATION: Tan Swee Hoe Co. Ltd. V. Ali Hussain Bros. [1980] 2 MLJ 16. ISSUE: Whether the evidence of the oral promise could be given in view of sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act 1950. PRINCIPLE: - Landlord and Tenant - Written agreement - Oral promise - Evidence Act 1950 - Contract - National Land Code - Collateral contract - Warranty MATERIAL FACTS: In this case, Tan Swee Hoe was the landlord or the appellants to the Ali Hussain Bros, while Ali Hussain Bros was the tenant or the respondents to the Tan Swee Hoe. The appellants actually had brought this case to the lower court but had been dismissed. Yet, in December 1970, they filed their present claim to the federal court, praying for vacant premises, arrears of rent,…show more content…
They paid the tea-money and received the first month’s receipt at the back of which were recited seven conditions that to be obeyed by the respondent. With the consent of the appellants, they expended substantial sum of money to make the necessary alterations to the said premises so that it was fit to be used as an eating shop. Later, in 1961, the parties entered into a written agreement whereby the rent was increased from $200 to $220 per month without mention regarding the earlier oral assurance before. While, in 1967 another written agreement was executed increasing the rent from $220 to $254 per month. The disputes between the appellants and the respondents occurred regarding the payment of rent by the end of 1968. The appellants demanded an increase of $10 rent in view of the increase in assessment but the respondents did not agree to the increase. The appellants wrote to the respondents suggesting an amicable settlement on payment of increase of rent in the sum of $55 per month in December 1969. And at the end of the month, they wrote again by offering a tenancy of ten years instead of 20…show more content…
Moreover, the learned judge emphasize rent between the appellants and the respondents regarding the payment of correct monthly rent brought about by the increase in assessment was $293.37 and not $403.50 as according to what the appellants’ claim to be. The learned judge further explained that in Johor, unlike other States, the assessment is based on the improved value of the property and believe that present rate of assessment is about 1.5% on the improved value. In the 1967 agreement, the rent is stated to be $254/- per mensem commencing from May 1, 1967 and the increase in rent should therefore be based on the percentage of increase in assessment, quit rent and other taxes. It has been shown that there has been increase in assessment but not other taxes. In 1968, when the assessment was $349.70, the rent was $254/- per mensem, while in 1969, the assessment was $403.50. In term of percentage, the increase of rent is 15.38%. The learned judge believes that the defendants are not correct in saying that the

More about Tan Swee Hoe Co. Ltd. V Ali Alin Lh Case Study

Open Document