HVS PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED v VINOD EASHWAR

HVS PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED v VINOD EASHWAR

The 2020 Tenancy Agreement expressly identified the landlord as Sunrita/HVS acting on behalf of Mdm Rita; therefore HVS lacked locus standi in contract because it was not a contracting party in its own right and could not rely on an unproven external trust to convert agency rights into contractual rights without pleading and proof. The counterclaim torts failed: inducement was abandoned and, in any event, no actionable loss was shown due to the 2022 tenancy release and indemnity; claims for breach of quiet enjoyment failed because defendants in counterclaim were not landlords or claiming under the landlord; harassment claims were procedurally defective under the Protection from Harassment...

Citation
[2026] SGDC 33
Parties
Claimant; 1st to 3rd Defendants in Counterclaim: HVS Properties Private Limited; Defendant; Claimant in Counterclaim: Vinod Eashwar; 2nd Defendant in Counterclaim: Sunil Kishinchand Bhojwani; 3rd Defendant in Counterclaim: Win Phyu Shwe; 4th Defendant in Counterclaim: Mahmood Gaznavi s/o Bashir Muhammad
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
21 January 2026
Case Number
DC/OC 262/2022
Procedural Posture
District Court Originating Claim No 262 of 2022 / Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed in its entirety; Counterclaim dismissed in its entirety.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Covenant for Quiet Enjoyment, Conspiracy, Inducement of Breach of Contract, Harassment Jurisdiction, Locus Standi in Contractual Claims
Source Language
English
Landlord and Tenant Contract Tort Civil Procedure Breach of Contract Covenant for Quiet Enjoyment Conspiracy Inducement of Breach of Contract +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HVS Properties Private Limited

Claimant; 1st to 3rd Defendants in Counterclaim

Vinod Eashwar

Defendant; Claimant in Counterclaim

Sunil Kishinchand Bhojwani

2nd Defendant in Counterclaim

Win Phyu Shwe

3rd Defendant in Counterclaim

Mahmood Gaznavi s/o Bashir Muhammad

4th Defendant in Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

District Court Originating Claim No 262 of 2022 / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is HVS party to and/or the landlord under the 2020 Tenancy Agreement?
  2. 2 If HVS is party, what relief is it entitled to?
  3. 3 Did Defendants in Counterclaim induce breach of the 2020 Tenancy Agreement?

Ratio Decidendi

The 2020 Tenancy Agreement expressly identified the landlord as Sunrita/HVS acting on behalf of Mdm Rita; therefore HVS lacked locus standi in contract because it was not a contracting party in its own right and could not rely on an unproven external trust to convert agency rights into contractual rights without pleading and proof. The counterclaim torts failed: inducement was abandoned and, in any event, no actionable loss was shown due to the 2022 tenancy release and indemnity; claims for breach of quiet enjoyment failed because defendants in counterclaim were not landlords or claiming under the landlord; harassment claims were procedurally defective under the Protection from Harassment...

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed in its entirety; Counterclaim dismissed in its entirety.

Orders

  • Claimant and Defendant in Counterclaim to file and serve written submissions on costs (incident and quantum) limited to 2 pages excluding schedule of disbursements within 14 days.