It is not illegal. As long there is no nuisance caused to the use and enjoyment of the other units AND there is no loss or damage to the common property, there is nothing to stop you from doing so.

I see no difference between a person who rents out a unit on a daily basis to a noisy, boisterous family for profit AND a person who allows his noisy, boisterous relatives to stay in his unit for free. If it is nuisance, it is nuisance, irrespective of whether the stay is for a fee or otherwise.



This post has been edited by dariofoo: May 23 2012, 06:34 PM

A lot of people like to take the easy way out of things without realising the consequences. I have seen the consequences myself, in a case where the tenant sued the landlord for unlawful interference with use and enjoyment of premises by cutting off electricity and water. The tenant successfully obtained an injunction to compel the landlord to restore the utilities. The Judge held that the fact that the tenant had arrears of rental was a separate issue altogether and does not justify the interruption of supply of utilities to the premises. The best part was, the landlord was the wife of a lawyer, who acted for her in the suit and still lost the injunction. Although the case was later settled, a lot of time and money was wasted to defend the injunction.

That the consequence which a landlord must face if he decides to use self-help measures.


To be fair, I don't think the moderators would delete or take action against those seemingly illegal or wrong advice. In fact, how would the moderators even know, from a STRICTLY legal standpoint, as to whether the advice is accurate or otherwise? In fact, the particular TS ought to know and judge for himself whether the advice is good or otherwise. From the language and terms used, from the background of the forummer posting it. Ultimately, if that TS is really looking for genuine advice, go seek an ACTUAL lawyer for some proper consultation. They are only looking for trouble if they put their trust in various strangers giving advice using a pseudonym and shielding behind an avatar.

The fact that the mods have allowed Lawyer's Corner to be a pinned topic is a good thing. It is a one-stop centre for legal advice. Yet, some folks deem it more befitting to open their own topics and ask legal advice from the general public. To expect the mods to then 'look out' for idiots giving misleading advice would be stretching it too far as the TS ought to know better since there is a dedicated thread to seek legal advice from.

Like the saying goes, 'you can lead a horse to water but you can't force it to drink'.

I'm sure there's the silent majority who reads your advice and understands accordingly. So, do keep on plodding along and keep up the good work, mate

With all due respect, you are looking at it from a wrong angle. What I gather is that you're saying - there's nothing which says that 1 day renting and running like motel is not commercial use.

There is a maxim and general principle in law, derived from English law, that "everything which is not prohibited is allowed". As such, unless there is a general prohibition on it, then it is permissible. As such, one cannot say just because there's nothing in the law which says that "1 day renting and running like motel is not commercial use" then we can presume that is MIGHT or CAN BE DEEMED TO be commercial use.

If we look at the Strata Titles Act, Section 34 provides:

34. Rights of proprietor in his parcel and common property.

(1) Subject to this section and other provisions of this Act, a proprietor shall have-

(a) in relation to his parcel (in the case of a parcel proprietor) the powers conferred by the National Land Code (NLC) on a proprietor in relation to his land;

So, we go back to the NLC. NLC provides for lease of land. Tenancy is also recognised as a irrefutable right of a proprietor, provided that an agreement for a tenancy does not exceed 3 years. If it is more than 3 years, it has to be a lease. And a lease must be registered.

One must note that there is no minimum limit as to tenancy set by the law. As such, even a day's tenancy is considered legal. One cannot equate it to a hotel/motel as for such services, they do not require tenancy agreements to be drawn up. A signature on the registration form confirms that the occupant agrees to be bound by their Rules & Regulations set by the hotel/motel.

For landlords who are going to rent it out on a daily basis, a tenancy agreement still has to be drawn up and executed by the parties and subsequently stamped (if the landlord wants it to be enforceable and admitted as evidence in Court if a dispute arises).

So, we've basically established that even a daily tenancy by a proprietor is not commercial in nature and is not against the law with regard to the National Land Code and the Strata Titles Act.

Now, in the event that the tenant causes nuisance or trouble or transgresses upon the rights, use and enjoyment of OTHER proprietors and/or the common property of the condo, then yes, there is a breach in TORT. In this scenario, the other proprietors or the MC/JMB can take action against the tenant and/or proprietor for such tort.

The remedy for the other proprietors or the MC/JMB is to seek damages/compensation. That is all. The other proprietors or the MC/JMB cannot prohibit the landlord from subsequently renting out the premises to another party. That would be infringing upon the legal right of the proprietor to the use and disposal of his private property as he pleases. If another problem arises, another legal suit has to be filed again. The process is separate and commences again from scratch. If there are any losses/damage, then the tenant/proprietor, or both, must pay damages to the party who has suffered loss.

On another note, if there is sufficient proof to show that there is a commercial aspect to the rental (i.e. it is essentially a motel business disguised as a tenancy), then a complaint to the Local Authority can be done. Evidence such as:
1. The issuance of receipts with the landlord/proprietor being represented by a commercial entity in name, or even a name of a motel; or
2. Advertising and notices with the landlord/proprietor being represented by a commercial entity in name.

If there is black and white evidence of the above, then a complaint to the Local Authority (LA) can be justified. The LA can take action and fine the individual/company concerned for breach of municipal laws, eg for trading without a proper license, trading without proper signage/signboard. The Inland Revenue Board can also take action if they find out that the entity has not been declaring their profits for the purposes of taxation (as we can assume that the rental is paid by way of cash). In all such cases, the proprietor would be fined and warned.

However, if the scenario is such there is no receipts, no advertisements (depicting a hotel/motel scenario) and no representation by a legal entity that the premises are for commercial usage of a hotel/motel, then IT IS NOT ILLEGAL.

I hope the above clarification suffices.

This post has been edited by dariofoo: May 25 2012, 12:26 PM

I've already stated the position in my earlier post, so I'll post the relevant portion here again. If you think it's too long then just read the parts in bold:



The remedy for the other proprietors or the MC/JMB is to seek damages/compensation. That is all. The other proprietors or the MC/JMB cannot prohibit the landlord from subsequently renting out the premises to another party. That would be infringing upon the legal right of the proprietor to the use and disposal of his private property as he pleases. If another problem arises, another legal suit has to be filed again. The process is separate and commences again from scratch. If there are any losses/damage, then the tenant/proprietor, or both, must pay damages to the party who has suffered loss.

On another note, if there is sufficient proof to show that there is a commercial aspect to the rental (i.e. it is essentially a motel business disguised as a tenancy), then a complaint to the Local Authority can be done. Evidence such as:
1. The issuance of receipts with the landlord/proprietor being represented by a commercial entity in name, or even a name of a motel; or
2. Advertising and notices with the landlord/proprietor being represented by a commercial entity in name.

If there is black and white evidence of the above, then a complaint to the Local Authority (LA) can be justified. The LA can take action and fine the individual/company concerned for breach of municipal laws, eg for trading without a proper license, trading without proper signage/signboard. The Inland Revenue Board can also take action if they find out that the entity has not been declaring their profits for the purposes of taxation (as we can assume that the rental is paid by way of cash). In all such cases, the proprietor would be fined and warned.

1. Both.
2. Doesn't matter if not registered. That's what you want - the fact they are running a business which is not registered. The proprietor/owner will be responsible nonetheless. That would be the party who would be penalised by the authorities.

Right way to do it in what sense? If you're renting it out daily it is still considered a business. If you rent it out on a yearly basis that is different, as you would prepare a proper tenancy agreement and it would make the relationship that of a landlord and tenant. That is legal.

If daily and with a receipt, that is clearly running a business, and if the law catches up on you, they can shut you down.

No.2 is enough to show existence of tenancy. You can even have a daily tenancy. However,is it practical to prepare, sign and stamp a tenancy agreement for a one day rental? But, if you want to really show that you are renting it out as a tenancy and not an unlicensed hotel, that is the only way to go about it, as much as it is not practical.

Landlord whether company or individual makes little difference. Earnings by way of rental is taxable in both scenarios.

If it's not stamped, it means you did not pay stamp duty. Stamp duty is tax. If you don't pay tax, is it legal?

Did you read the progress of the discussion or did you just read that particular quote of mine? Start frm where Backkom put in the relevant clause of the Act. Look at the clause where it states that an exemption to definition of a Hotel is where the owner gives put the premises on a landloard-tenant relationship. Now, in order to prove such relationship, you need to have a tenancy agreement, even if it is for a day. Otherwise, cakap mulut is of no use or else everyone can cakap mulut that he is giving it out on a daily tenancy, etc.

Next, the agreement must be stamped, in order for it to have legal basis. An unstamped document is of no value when authorities come knocking on the door to check. Likewise to cakap mulut, an unstamped tenancy agreement lends you little credibility to honestly show a genuine landlord-tenancy relationship. I'm not saying that it is illegal to have an unstamped agreement. No one is going to fine you for not having an unstamped agreement per se. It does not have strong evidentiary value. Don't confuse it with income tax on tenancy rental. That is a different issue altogether.

What I'm trying to say is - don't mix up the terms tenancy,renting out and commercial. It is considered that you are dealing it on a commercial basis as an unlicensed hotel unless can show that your case falls under one of the exceptions under the secton of the Act as quoted earlier. Read it again. Nothing else matters.

Utimately, when you're the owner of a condo, your rights must be balanced against the rights of all the other owners of the units. This is where the MC/JMB plays an important role to weed out the problems and attempt to strike a balance between the individual rights of an owner to deal with his own property as he likes AND the rights of the other owners to enjoy quiet and peaceful use of their own unit and the common property of the condo.

This post has been edited by dariofoo: Aug 16 2012, 09:03 AM