Singapore Expats Forum

Termination of lease by landlord

Discuss about life in Singapore. Ask about cost of living, housing, travel, etiquette & lifestyle. Share experience & advice with Singaporeans & expat staying in Singapore.

Sponsored by:
Image
AE Logistics - Singapore Movers

Beeroclock
Reporter
Reporter
Posts: 718
Joined: Thu, 31 Oct 2013

Postby Beeroclock » Mon, 16 Dec 2013 4:40 pm

nakatago wrote:
Beeroclock wrote:hi Nakatago, isn't the signed TA a good enough legal standing? I agree with you and AMG that it will always be best to find an amicable solution, but if you really can't reach compromise with owner and you need to insist to stay on there, how does the owner actually get you out of the property ?


Not unless there's an explicit clause in there which is not often the case. I'm talking from experience here.

If you want to insist on staying tooth, fang, and claw, is it worth the trouble? A landlord can suddenly find a lot of excuses that you were in breach. Like I said, a tenant doesn't have leverage.


Yes I guess it's not worth the trouble... but was just curious if push comes to shove, how can the landlord actually forcibly evict. I think police/court will have to back off if tenant shows a valid/signed TA. Of course it will sour the relationship and tenant will have an even tougher time recovering deposit, but also tough for landlord to evict on minor breaches if the tenant meets the key obligations i.e. rent always paid on time, place kept in reasonable condition, etc. Anyway I think all are in agreement it's best not to go there.

User avatar
nakatago
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 8333
Joined: Tue, 01 Sep 2009
Location: Sister Margaret’s School for Wayward Children
Contact:

Postby nakatago » Mon, 16 Dec 2013 4:44 pm

Beeroclock wrote:
nakatago wrote:
Beeroclock wrote:hi Nakatago, isn't the signed TA a good enough legal standing? I agree with you and AMG that it will always be best to find an amicable solution, but if you really can't reach compromise with owner and you need to insist to stay on there, how does the owner actually get you out of the property ?


Not unless there's an explicit clause in there which is not often the case. I'm talking from experience here.

If you want to insist on staying tooth, fang, and claw, is it worth the trouble? A landlord can suddenly find a lot of excuses that you were in breach. Like I said, a tenant doesn't have leverage.


Yes I guess it's not worth the trouble... but was just curious if push comes to shove, how can the landlord actually forcibly evict. I think police/court will have to back off if tenant shows a valid/signed TA. Of course it will sour the relationship and tenant will have an even tougher time recovering deposit, but also tough for landlord to evict on minor breaches if the tenant meets the key obligations i.e. rent always paid on time, place kept in reasonable condition, etc. Anyway I think all are in agreement it's best not to go there.


If the police are like the HDB, they would just tell you that they can't do anything if the landlord wants you to move out.

User avatar
x9200
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9318
Joined: Mon, 07 Sep 2009
Location: Singapore

Postby x9200 » Mon, 16 Dec 2013 4:47 pm

nakatago wrote:
Beeroclock wrote:hi Nakatago, isn't the signed TA a good enough legal standing? I agree with you and AMG that it will always be best to find an amicable solution, but if you really can't reach compromise with owner and you need to insist to stay on there, how does the owner actually get you out of the property ?


Not unless there's an explicit clause in there which is not often the case. I'm talking from experience here.

If you want to insist on staying tooth, fang, and claw, is it worth the trouble? A landlord can suddenly find a lot of excuses that you were in breach. Like I said, a tenant doesn't have leverage.

Could you give some examples of this experience and tell where is this here? I did not recall anything like this. Just few people repeating the same phrase with no proof of any kind behind their words. I already have challenged one person in similar discussion last time and still patiently waiting for her response that she supposed to prepare. Now also you joined this small crowd.

In many cases all the troubles is SCT which is no trouble at all.

User avatar
nakatago
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 8333
Joined: Tue, 01 Sep 2009
Location: Sister Margaret’s School for Wayward Children
Contact:

Postby nakatago » Mon, 16 Dec 2013 5:00 pm

x9200 wrote:
nakatago wrote:
Beeroclock wrote:hi Nakatago, isn't the signed TA a good enough legal standing? I agree with you and AMG that it will always be best to find an amicable solution, but if you really can't reach compromise with owner and you need to insist to stay on there, how does the owner actually get you out of the property ?


Not unless there's an explicit clause in there which is not often the case. I'm talking from experience here.

If you want to insist on staying tooth, fang, and claw, is it worth the trouble? A landlord can suddenly find a lot of excuses that you were in breach. Like I said, a tenant doesn't have leverage.

Could you give some examples of this experience and tell where is this here? I did not recall anything like this. Just few people repeating the same phrase with no proof of any kind behind their words. I already have challenged one person in similar discussion last time and still patiently waiting for her response that she supposed to prepare. Now also you joined this small crowd.

In many cases all the troubles is SCT which is no trouble at all.


It happened to us on our last lease. We looked at the relevant laws, policies and consulted lawyers and the HDB.

Granted, our then-landlord's agent was a weasel and could've given us a heaps of trouble. After our careful deliberation then between us flatmates and weight all of our options (which we all went through independently), we concluded it wasn't worth the trouble. OP can feel free to go to SCT; he should just really take go through his TA with a fine-toothed comb.

Note that I didn't say this would be the same case for OP but I am sharing what we went through...thrice.

Beeroclock
Reporter
Reporter
Posts: 718
Joined: Thu, 31 Oct 2013

Postby Beeroclock » Mon, 16 Dec 2013 5:09 pm

Very surprised to hear a Govt body such as HDB would make such a statement. ("If the police are like the HDB, they would just tell you that they can't do anything if the landlord wants you to move out.")

All TA will have a clause saying the Landlord agrees the Tenant shall peaceably hold and enjoy the said premises for the duration of the tenancy without any interruption by the Landlord, provided Tenant pays the rent and meets his/her other obligations. Or words to that effect. It's a clearcut legal right to stay given by Landlord to Tenant. Police/Court/Govt etc, they are required to uphold the law so they should be defending the Tenant if the Landlord tries to kick them out improperly.

Once again pls note I'm not suggesting this course of action by the Tenant, but would like to clarify who has the right to do what here.

User avatar
nakatago
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 8333
Joined: Tue, 01 Sep 2009
Location: Sister Margaret’s School for Wayward Children
Contact:

Postby nakatago » Mon, 16 Dec 2013 5:12 pm

Beeroclock wrote:All TA will have a clause saying the Landlord agrees the Tenant shall peaceably hold and enjoy the said premises for the duration of the tenancy without any interruption by the Landlord, provided Tenant pays the rent and meets his/her other obligations. Or words to that effect. It's a clearcut legal right to stay given by Landlord to Tenant. Police/Court/Govt etc, they are required to uphold the law so they should be defending the Tenant if the Landlord tries to kick them out improperly..


For condos, probably. But for HDB's, no. Hence the HDB having told us they couldn't do anything to help us. There could've been some rule change since then but my gut feel says no. Feel free to check.

User avatar
x9200
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9318
Joined: Mon, 07 Sep 2009
Location: Singapore

Postby x9200 » Mon, 16 Dec 2013 5:30 pm

Nak, but you can see this is not about the law but your personal preferences. These are normal procedures present in many countries and it is always a question whether this is worth the troubles or not. It is not that the tenants have no rights, it is simply they have no extra rights like for example in EU.
For OP case the damage is probably minimal, so it may not be worth the troubles indeed but in principle nothing puts the tenant in inferior legal position.

For example, if this was not a renewal but a fresh start I am very sure all the costs related to relocation could be recovered.

rathivr
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon, 16 Dec 2013

Postby rathivr » Mon, 16 Dec 2013 5:35 pm

I have re- read the TA several times, there is no specific clause about premature termination of TA.
There is a clause about termination in the case if the premises is destroyed or damaged as well as the clause about quiet possession and enjoyment.
Called SCT, was advised if I am to lodge a claim that it would be only for the deposit. For further claims, to hire a legal aid.

Very annoyed at this point.

User avatar
nakatago
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 8333
Joined: Tue, 01 Sep 2009
Location: Sister Margaret’s School for Wayward Children
Contact:

Postby nakatago » Mon, 16 Dec 2013 5:43 pm

rathivr wrote:I have re- read the TA several times, there is no specific clause about premature termination of TA.
There is a clause about termination in the case if the premises is destroyed or damaged as well as the clause about quiet possession and enjoyment.
Called SCT, was advised if I am to lodge a claim that it would be only for the deposit. For further claims, to hire a legal aid.

Very annoyed at this point.


x9200 wrote:Nak, but you can see this is not about the law but your personal preferences. These are normal procedures present in many countries and it is always a question whether this is worth the troubles or not. It is not that the tenants have no rights, it is simply they have no extra rights like for example in EU.


I was giving advice, albeit not legal advice.

'nuff said.

Beeroclock
Reporter
Reporter
Posts: 718
Joined: Thu, 31 Oct 2013

Postby Beeroclock » Mon, 16 Dec 2013 5:56 pm

rathivr wrote:I have re- read the TA several times, there is no specific clause about premature termination of TA.
There is a clause about termination in the case if the premises is destroyed or damaged as well as the clause about quiet possession and enjoyment.
Called SCT, was advised if I am to lodge a claim that it would be only for the deposit. For further claims, to hire a legal aid.

Very annoyed at this point.


My advice for what it's worth.... just go along for meeting with landlady/agent and hear them out. Try to find out more about the family problem and does it mean they need to sell the place or they now require to occupy themselves. If they make any demand or ask for any decision from you, then request them to put it in writing first. Try not to react too much, just listen / gather facts. Most people here seem to agree you have the contractual right to stay, so I would take comfort in this and just go one step at a time.

User avatar
JR8
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 16514
Joined: Wed, 24 Mar 2010
Location: K. Puki Manis

Re: Termination of lease by landlord

Postby JR8 » Mon, 16 Dec 2013 9:33 pm

rathivr wrote:Hi,
I just renewed my TA less than a month ago. After the paperwork has been sorted,my landlord now wants to terminate the lease.
It is very frustrating as the initial TA was to end on the 15th of December 2013, we just resigned 2 -3 weeks ago and yesterday,which is the 15th of December, my agent informs us that the landlord wants to terminate the lease. I am not keen to move.
How do I go about this?
Rathi


Well, too bad they can't.

Tell them to stick their 'wish' where the sun doesn't shine.

Simple!

User avatar
JR8
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 16514
Joined: Wed, 24 Mar 2010
Location: K. Puki Manis

Postby JR8 » Mon, 16 Dec 2013 9:40 pm

Probably owned by a couple, perhaps divorcing or estranged.

One decided to rent, and has just done so. And at the last minute the other is now trying to force a sale (to get his/her half-share out).

Ignore it, their drama is not your problem. It's now your home and you have a right of legal tenure to occupy it without interference, for 'the term'.

If they write you anything claiming that 'you have to this, or that', if you reply at all, I think the starting point would be 'Kindly explain in terms that a lay-man can understand, the legal basis on which you state I have to XYZ...'

Leave the work and sweat to them, see how they make their case/argument, and meanwhile get on with your life.

User avatar
x9200
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9318
Joined: Mon, 07 Sep 2009
Location: Singapore

Postby x9200 » Tue, 17 Dec 2013 7:05 am

I agree with the above, but knowing too well local reality I am almost certain the response will be just the repeated request without any explanation (at best).


  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “Staying, Living in Singapore”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests