Dear all, here are some of the points that I'd like to discuss on Vacant Possession (VP) and Extensions of Time (EOT).

I understand that there was a Federal Court case that don't allow the Extensions by the Housing Controller anymore.

Since SPAs nowadays has 24/36/48 or more for VP, how could those clauses still be valid after the case?

I saw few SPAs with 48 or more months but since that's not under the Schedule.. why are those clauses still there?  :confused:

To summarize, my question was why are there some VP clauses that states more than 24/36 months when the Housing Controller has no power to grant those extensions?

It is regulated under the HDA. 24 for landed/36 for high rise. Schedule G and Schedule H to be exact. There should be no changes to the schedules / time limits for VP from my understanding.

That's why it's very curious to see the differences the projects on the VP dates.

I understand that it was the case previously. But with the developments in law... see below.

Iprop

Even here Lawyer's site

This is one of the latest updates. That's why I am confused with some of the SPAs with the 48/54 months etc time frame. Does it not mean that any extension given by the same person/the KPKT is now invalid?   :confused:

That's why I am confused. After reading the case and asking around, that case made a lot of the SPAs very tricky now. Apparently the person that signed for the extensions have no power to do so and the things he did was considered... "not legal?" after the case because it's not under his powers to change anything under the HDA.