Mitre Site Sale: No Payout For Evicted Dissenter

Source : The Straits Times, 24 Aug 2007

Judge rules that the hotel’s proprietors are not entitled to compensation for moving out

HE WAS the last man standing in the way of the sale of the Mitre Hotel.

Now, 62-year-old Chiam Heng Hsien, who is the only living partner of the hotel, will not only have to move out, but he will also not get any compensation for being evicted.

The dilapidated hotel, which stopped operating in 2002, is a well-known landmark, sitting on 40,000 sq ft of prime land in Killiney Road.

It has also been at the centre of a legal saga that started back in 1996.

Then, Mr Chiam fought off a move by his cousin, Mr Chiam Heng Luan, and the latter’s daughter - who had obtained a court order to sell the site.

However, the High Court did not decree that the hotel had to be vacated before it could be sold.

Then, the highest bid came up to $73 million, but Mr Chiam Heng Hsien, who owns 10 per cent of the property, resisted.

He said he would move out only if the hotel proprietors were paid $21 million.

The deal fell through.

Mr Chiam continued staying in the hotel until early last year, when the family went back to court.

By the time the hearing began in April this year, he was the only one holding out against all the other 11 owners of the site, who wanted it to be sold.

Justice Judith Prakash ruled against Mr Chiam, ordering the property to be sold via public tender. Mr Chiam was also ordered to clear out of the premises at least four weeks before the sale is completed.

Justice Prakash said in April that she would decide later whether the hotel proprietors should be compensated for being kicked out.

On Tuesday, in a 52-page written judgment, she ruled that the proprietors were not entitled to compensation.

The judge also gave her reasons for deciding that the property was to be sold.

In court, Mr Chiam, represented by Mr Andre Maniam, had claimed that a 1948 agreement allowed the hotel proprietors to stay on the property for as long as they wished.

Alternatively, he argued, the proprietors should be awarded compensation if they move out.

But the plaintiffs, through Senior Counsel Harpreet Singh Nehal, argued that there was no such agreement.

In her judgment, Justice Prakash agreed that, apart from Mr Chiam’s testimony, there was no other evidence that there was such an agreement for an indefinite stay.

However, she found that there was an intention for the proprietors to occupy the property for as long as it was running a hotel business.

She found that once the proprietors stopped running the hotel business, they could no longer prevent the land owners from demanding the return of the property.

Therefore, she ordered that all 12 owners of the property pay for all property tax and maintenance expenditure incurred by the proprietors since the beginning of 2003, when the hotel lost its operating licence. The unspecified amount is to be paid from the sales proceeds of the property.