| A TWO-STOREY pre-war building along Killiney Road is sitting on land said to be worth millions.  | | Mitre Hotel in 2004. --File pic/THE STRAITS TIMES | It has seen better days as Mitre Hotel. The hotel still offers rooms to budget travellers but at one point the building looked derelict, as shown in this 2004 picture. Ruin notwithstanding, the building has a permanent occupant. Mr Chiam Heng Hsien, 61, refuses to budge from the building at 145 Killiney Road that he has been living in since childhood. Now he and the building are at the centre of a property dispute. His relatives who jointly own the property want him evicted. But he's staying put, though his share is just 10 per cent. Mr Chiam is arguing that the interests of a business partnership set up years ago ranks above an agreement among the co-owners to sell the property. Could Mr Chiam be angling for a bigger slice of the pie via the business partnership he cites? The case is not straightforward. But one thing is clear. Big money is involved as the building sits on prime land of more than 3,700 sq m, or about half the size of a football field. Property experts told The New Paper it could fetch about $70 million because of its location just off Orchard Road. Mr Chiam used to manage Mitre Hotel which closed down at the end of 2002, a casualty of the post-9/11 tourist drought. Some repairs were done and it is still in business, according to an employee who spoke to The New Paper. But Mr Chiam's cousin, Mr Chiam Heng Luan, in his 90s, his daughter, Ms Chiam Ai Thong, and three other shareholders are applying for a High Court order to get Mr Chiam to vacate the premises so the property can be sold. Mr Chiam, who inherited his stake from his late parents, has engaged lawyers to fight his case. Court papers obtained by The New Paper stated that five other members of the Chiam family have been named as co-defendants. Many of the present shareholders of the property are descendants of the original owners. Heng Luan - who founded Sloane Court Hotel at Balmoral Road - said in his affidavit that his 40 per cent stake in the property was held in trust by his late wife, Madam Lim Wee Leng. It is now in the name of Ai Thong, the executor of her mother's estate. The plaintiffs - who have a combined 45 per cent stake - want the High Court to order Mr Chiam to surrender the property to them within four weeks from the date of the order. They also stated in their affidavits that in two court orders in 1996, Justice Kan Ting Chiu had ordered the property to be vacated and sold. Although the land was put on sale via public tender, the transaction fell through. (See other report.) Ai Thong's affidavit also stated that four of Mr Chiam's co-defendants, who have a combined 35 per cent stake, are in favour of selling the property. This means that those who want to sell it have a combined 80 per cent stake. But Mr Chiam's claim is that the Mitre Hotel partnership had an agreement allowing it to use the property for its business for as long as the partners liked. He claimed that premiums were paid to other relatives who have since left the partnership, including Heng Luan. BOUGHT IN 1948 In his affidavit, Mr Chiam claimed that his late father, Mr Chiam Toh Moo, cousin Chiam Eng Aun, uncle Chiam Toh Kai and Heng Luan bought the property for $61,000 in 1948. To facilitate business operations, Mr Chiam stated that a partnership was formed between the owners and other friends and relatives. But in 1951, he claimed, his uncle, Toh Say, bought his partners' shares for $260,000. The partners were friends and relatives who formed the original partnership. Mr Chiam said that a subsequent partnership comprising his father, uncles Toh Say, Toh Lew and Toh Tay was formed. Mr Chiam, who took over the hotel management from Toh Say in 1975, backed up this claim with a copy of the deed of partnership. He said in his affidavit: 'I believe the Mitre Hotel partnership can't be evicted unless it decides to give up its interest in the property.' Rebutting Mr Chiam's claims, Heng Luan stated in his affidavit that there was no agreement allowing the hotel partnership to use the property for its business for as long as it liked. Heng Luan also denied his cousin's claim that he was paid a premium when he left the original partnership. To support his statement, he produced a deed of dissolution issued on 26 Feb, 1952, showing he received only $10,000 after leaving the partnership. Ai Thong's affidavit also refuted Mr Chiam's claims and explained why it was desirable for the property to be sold. She said: 'Over the years, it is Chiam Heng Hsien who has benefited from the use of the property. 'If there's no order for a sale, it will be at the expense of the plaintiffs and other owners, who have an equal right of possession of the property.' She added that Mr Chiam had failed to maintain the premises, citing media reports of how he was fined for breeding mosquitoes in 2004. She also stated that on 18 Aug 1995, the co-owners received a letter from the then Public Works Department, informing them that structural damages made the building unsafe. As for Mr Chiam's claim that the partnership could use the property for as long as it liked, she stated that the hotel has since gone out of business. 'For all these reasons, it's desirable that the property be sold.' The case is set to be heard next week. | 
