Night-Shift Nurse Wins S$1,536 in Air-Con Dispute With HDB Landlord at Small Claims Tribunal

The Malaysian nurse rented a common bedroom in a five-room HDB flat from September 2024 under a one-year tenancy agreement at S$800 a month. She shared the flat with another Malaysian nurse, each occupying a common bedroom, while the landlord’s daughter and her husband occupied the master bedroom. Both nurses worked rotating night shifts at a public hospital.

Because of their night shifts, the nurses negotiated a term allowing them to use the air-conditioner for up to eight hours a day regardless of the time of day. This differed from the usual arrangement in room rental agreements, which typically restrict air-conditioning to nighttime. “It was a practical arrangement that made good sense for someone who needed to sleep during the day after a night shift,” the magistrate wrote.

Trouble began when the landlord’s daughter became unhappy. Although each tenant stayed within her individual eight-hour daily limit, they worked different shifts, so the compressor sometimes ran for up to 16 hours a day. The daughter frequently harassed the tenants by shouting at them and disrupting their sleep by switching off the air-conditioner’s main power supply.

On Nov 1, 2024, the daughter presented the tenants with three options: increase rent from S$800 to S$1,000 and keep using the air-conditioner during the day, keep paying S$800 but use it only between 11pm and 7am, or move out. If they refused, she threatened to “harass them daily until they did.” The nurses chose to leave by the end of November. The landlord then withheld both tenants’ S$800 security deposits.

The case took an unusual turn after the nurse filed her claim. The landlord failed to attend the first trial date in August 2025, claiming she had fractured her leg. Although her medical certificate did not meet court requirements, the magistrate adjourned the hearing to give her another opportunity. She failed to appear again on Sep 30, 2025.

After hearing evidence from the nurse and her witness, the tribunal ruled in the nurse’s favour. A week later, the landlord applied to set aside the judgment, saying she had broken bones and was unable to walk. The magistrate rejected this, finding she had been physically capable of attending and had deliberately stayed away.

“The irresistible inference was that the (landlord) was selective in her attendance of judicial proceedings – present when it suited her, and absent when it did not,” he wrote. He found her explanation for not obtaining a proper medical certificate “rings hollow”, noting she had been able to articulate exactly those points during the hearing itself.

On the merits, the magistrate found none of the landlord’s reasons for keeping the security deposit justified withholding it. The landlord had alleged the nurse improperly brought her boyfriend to the room and committed “immoral acts”, that she exceeded her air-conditioning allowance, and that she terminated the tenancy early.

The magistrate found there was no contractual requirement for the tenant to seek permission before having visitors, no evidence she exceeded the agreed air-conditioning limit, and no clause allowing the landlord to keep the deposit because the tenancy ended early.

He also rejected the argument that higher electricity bills justified keeping the deposit: “(The landlord) bore the risk of any fluctuation in the bills as part of the fixed monthly rent of S$800. That was the bargain she struck – and it cut both ways. If electricity usage or prices fell and the bills decreased, the (landlord) would have been the beneficiary. She could not therefore look to the security deposit when the arrangement did not suit her.”

The magistrate concluded: “A bad bargain is not a basis for forfeiture.”