Charging Double Rent the Correct Way

1. The Landlord is the registered owner of a commercial building. The Tenants were occupying 3 floors in the building.
2. The tenancies expired as follows:
   • 11^th Floor – 30^th April 2009
   • 12^th Floor – 31^st March 2009
   • 14^th Floor – 31^st January 2011

3. Before the expiry of the tenancies, the parties negotiated for renewal of tenancies.
4. The negotiations went on even after the expiry of the tenancies for more than 2 years. During negotiations, the Landlord had expressly reserved its right to charge double rent and consistently reminded the Tenants to make payment. The Tenants did not do so.
5. The Tenants continued to pay rent (not double rent) to the Landlord during the negotiations.
6. The negotiations eventually failed. By way of a letter dated 19^th August 2011, the Landlord terminated the tenancies and gave notices to the Tenants to quit and deliver vacant possession by 1^st October 2011.
7. The Tenants requested for more time but was refused by the Landlord. Vacant possession was delivered on 31^st October 2011.
8. The Landlord sued for double rent, commencing from the above expired tenancy dates. The Tenants counterclaimed for refund of deposits.

The Court dismissed the Landlord’s claim for double rent and allowed the Tenants’ counterclaims for refund of deposits.

The Court allowed the appeal in part, inter alia, ordered the Tenants to pay double rent from 1^st October 2011 until 31^st October 2011 (1 month only).

The appeal was dismissed and affirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision.

Reasoning:

1. The Court is not concerned with any purported contumacious (stubbornly disobedient) conduct on the part of the tenant who holds over. Even if the tenant is not guilty of contumacious conduct, the tenant is still liable to pay double rent if the landlord:
   • decided to charge double rent;
   • does not consent to the tenant’s holding over; and
   • has asked the tenant to vacate the premises.
2. The question is whether they were holding over with or without the landlord’s consent, express or implied by conduct.
3. In this case, the Tenants’ holding over was with the tacit approval of the Landlord. By agreeing to negotiate for renewal of the tenancies, the Landlord had evinced an intention to renew the tenancies subject to finalisation of the terms.
4. The Landlord did not make it clear to the Tenants that it would not allow the Tenants to hold over without paying double rent while negotiations for renewal of the tenancies were ongoing.
5. All the while, the Landlord accepted rent from the Tenants without complaint and did not issue any notice to quit. Therefore, the Landlord by conduct had waived its right to charge double rent.
6. The Tenants were considered tenants at will. They were not trespassers during the period of negotiations.