RES exam question on Leasing of Private Property: commercial lease says
Ms Tan's commercial lease says: 'The tenant shall not assign this lease without the prior written consent of the landlord.' She finds a creditworthy assignee, but the landlord refuses consent without giving a reason. The lease reserves a right of re-entry for any breach of covenant. Which of the following statements is/are correct? (i) Since the assignee is creditworthy, a court will imply that consent may not be unreasonably withheld. (ii) The landlord may refuse, as the clause does not say consent is not to be unreasonably withheld. (iii) Under the CLPA, the landlord may not demand a fine for his consent unless the lease provides for one. (iv) If Ms Tan assigns anyway, she breaches the covenant and exposes the lease to forfeiture.
- A(ii), (iii) and (iv) only
- B(i) and (iii) only
- C(i), (iii) and (iv) only
- D(ii) and (iv) only
Show answer & explanation
Answer
A. (ii), (iii) and (iv) only
Explanation
Answer: (ii), (iii) and (iv) only. No Singapore statute reads reasonableness into a consent covenant; the CLPA only bars a fine unless the lease provides for one.(ii) True. The covenant is qualified, not absolute, but it says nothing about reasonableness, so the landlord may refuse consent.(iii) True. Section 17 of the CLPA provides that no fine is payable for consent unless the lease expressly provides for one.(iv) True. Assigning without consent breaches the covenant, and the lease reserves re-entry for breach.Watch out: England's Landlord and Tenant Act 1927, section 19(1), reads 'consent not to be unreasonably withheld' into such covenants, but that Act does not apply in Singapore.Rule: A qualified covenant against assigning without consent lets the landlord refuse unless the lease says consent is not to be unreasonably withheld, as no Singapore statute adds that requirement. The only statutory limit is that no fine is payable for consent unless the lease provides for one.Source: Conveyancing and Law of Property Act 1886 (CLPA) s 17, sso.agc.gov.sg, current at 5 October 2026
Why the other options are wrong
- (i) False. The assignee is creditworthy, but that matters only where the lease adds a reasonableness qualification, and no local statute adds one.
Study the concept behind this question: Leasing Private Residential Property (Singapore)
Practise more Leasing of Private Residential Property questions
Drill the full Leasing of Private Residential Property bank with instant answers and explanations — free to start, no card needed.
Try a timed set: sit a free RES mock exam, no sign-up needed. Or see the passes for the full question bank.
Related Leasing of Private Residential Property questions
- RES exam question on Leasing of Private Property: Mr Tan holds a five-year lease of a shop unit with three years left
- RES exam question on Leasing of Private Property: Luxe Watch Pte Ltd holds a three-year mall lease signed in April 2025 to sell one Swiss…
- RES exam question on Leasing of Private Property: Bubble Co Pte Ltd, a foreign-owned company, plans to lease an HDB shop unit in…
Get each day's lesson free — one RES topic + the trap, every day on Telegram.
Join @resprepsg →Original study material mapped to the public CEA RES syllabus. Verify any rate-based figures against current IRAS/CPF/MAS rules before relying on them.