SINGAPORE - A business that has already received a cash grant from the Government under Covid-19 rental relief measures is not entitled to a further rental waiver from its landlord.
A High Court judge made the ruling on Thursday, in a case involving landlord JTC Corporation and a tenant, stone product supplier Hot Spring Stone.
JTC had taken the company to court to claim rental arrears.
But the company argued that it was entitled to receive two months of rental waiver from JTC under the Covid-19 (Temporary Measures) Act, amounting to $95,467.62. This was despite the company already having received a cash grant of $123,360.
In 2020, the Government introduced rental relief measures through the Act to help mitigate the impact of the pandemic on businesses that leased non-residential properties.
A provision states that the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (Iras) may disburse a cash grant to the “owner of a prescribed property”.
Two other provisions govern the claiming of rental waivers by tenants from landlords.
Hot Spring received a cash grant in August 2020 as it was legally deemed to be the “owner” of the premises it leased from JTC.
The legal question raised in the case was whether such a deemed property “owner” can also be regarded as a “tenant” under the other provisions for the purposes of claiming a rental waiver.
An assistant registrar hearing the case recognised that allowing Hot Spring to receive both the cash grant from Iras and the rental waiver from JTC would effectively result in the company receiving a windfall or a double subsidy.
Nevertheless, the assistant registrar found that Hot Spring, as a tenant, was also entitled to receive two months of rental waiver from JTC, despite having received the cash grant.
The assistant registrar ruled in favour of JTC’s application for rental arrears, but reduced the quantum payable by $95,467.62, constituting two months of rent.
JTC then appealed to the High Court. The Attorney-General also intervened in the appeal to give views on the interpretation of the relevant provisions.
Both JTC and the AG argued that the “owner of a prescribed property” who receives a cash grant cannot also claim rental relief as a “tenant”.
Hot Spring argued that JTC is required to waive two months’ rent because it was the “ultimate” landlord.
In his judgment, Justice Kwek Mean Luck concluded that an entity that has received a cash grant as an “owner” cannot also receive a rental waiver as a “tenant” in respect of the same property.
“An eligible entity is entitled to only one form of rental relief,” he said.
He said the law was intended to operate through the provision of a cash grant to the “owner” of a property and for the benefit of this cash grant to then cascade downwards to its tenants and sub-tenants through the form of rental waiver.
Justice Kwek allowed the appeal and granted summary judgment in favour of JTC for the full sum of rental arrears it claimed. The sum was not specified in the judgment.
