Well…hmmm…the legal technicality term of the HDB owner defination of still living in the HDB flat while the rooms were being sublet to tenants
need to be define clearly. The owner got off the hook..that is a
good precedence for other HDB owners to watch
out..
HDB BACKS DOWN ON ACQUIRING FLAT; LEGAL
CHALLENGE AVERTED
A flat owner’s bid to challenge the HDB’s
move to take back his five-room unit ended yesterday when the
Housing Board told the High Court it will withdraw its notice of
intent to acquire the flat.
Mr Chew Teck Fatt in return agreed not to proceed with his
judicial review application. Justice Woo Bih Li, who made no order
on the application, ruled that HDB pay Mr
Chew’s legal costs at the closed-door hearing.
Yesterday’s turn of events staved off a potential landmark case
on whether the decisions of the HDB and the
office of the Minister of National Development can be the subject
of judicial review.
When contacted last night, Mr Chew, a 38-year-old company
director, said he was about to leave for Taiwan in the morning with
a “heavy heart” as this matter had caused him stress for about two
years. But “I felt very relieved and happy when my lawyer Kirpal
called me and said the case was withdrawn, just as I was about to
board the plane”.
An HDB spokesman The Straits Times spoke
to warned that the board “takes a serious view of any unauthorised
subletting as HDB flats are primarily meant
for owner occupation.
“In this particular case, as additional information had surfaced
after Mr Chew had filed his court application, we decided to give
him the benefit of doubt… “This avoids unnecessary litigation in
court and will save both time and costs for the court and all the
parties concerned.”
Mr Chew had bought the resale flat along Bukit Batok Street 25
for $480,000 in 2010. The next year, he let out a room to a couple
and then a second to a Taiwanese man whose child went to school
here. In both cases, he had HDB’s
approval.
But a probe by HDB officers, which
included surveillance of the flat and interviews with the tenants,
found that he was not living there.
It is a longstanding HDB policy that where
an owner does not stay in his flat during the period of subletting,
this would be evidence that the whole unit was being rented out.
Subletting an entire flat without approval is against the rules,
and can lead to the HDB compulsorily
acquiring the unit.
But Mr Chew denied renting out the whole flat and claimed he
kept the third room for his use. He also said that there were times
when he worked late or stayed at his mother’s place at Jalan
Bahagia in Balestier.
He made several appeals against the acquisition and said he
sought his MP’s help. When they all failed, he went to court,
arguing that he had a right to be heard on all the evidence
gathered.
At issue in the case would have been whether there must be
continuous physical occupation of the flat before Mr Chew can be
said to have abandoned his interest in the unit and was wholly
subletting it illegally.
At yesterday’s hearing, the court was informed that both
HDB and the minister would notify Mr Chew in
writing that they would not pursue their notice of intent to
re-acquire his flat made in December 2011 and January 2012
respectively. The minister’s decision is made after any aggrieved
party appeals to his office in a compulsory acquisition notice by
HDB.
Justice Woo asked for copies of the letters to be deposited with
the High Court registry, said lawyer Kirpal Singh on Mr Chew’s
behalf.
Source: The Straits Times
http://newlaunch-sg-my.com/Singapore_Property_N…
