A tenant cannot claim rights based on implied agreements or representations that contradict the terms of a written tenancy agreement, especially if there is no documentary evidence to support such claims.

Introduction

[1] The Plaintiff (formerly known as Ann Joo Properties Sdn Bhd) was a 30-year registered lessee of 29 acres of land held under No H.S. (D) 116369 No P.T. 185 Bandar Sultan Suleiman, Daerah Klang, Selangor Darul Ehsan ("Land). Before the lease was due to expire on 20 November 2022, the Plaintiff completed its purchase of the land from the previous landowner, Perbadanan Kemajuan Negeri Selangor ("PKNS"), on 21 November 2022 and became the registered proprietor on 22 August 2023.

[2] The Defendant is still carrying on business on the Land as inter alia, a container warehouse service provider with related services. The Defendant was a tenant of the Plaintiff occupying various portions of the Land since 14 January 2015. In this action, the Plaintiff contends that the Defendant is holding over on an expired tenancy and is unlawfully occupying parts of the Land. It claims vacant possession, outstanding rental and double rental under s 28(4) of the Civil Law Act 1956 .

[3] The Defendant claims to have a tenancy coupled with equity and filed a counterclaim. There is an interlocutory injunction in place which was ordered by the High Court and varied by the Court of Appeal on 29 October 2023 to maintain the status quo pending trial. Accordingly, the Defendant has continued in occupation of the Land until today with the deposit of outstanding rental in the sum RM5,872,526.52 and payment of RM498,496.04 monthly from October 2023 by the Defendant into a stakeholder account maintained by the Plaintiff's solicitors.

Background Facts

[4] It is undisputed that on 14-1 -2015, the parties entered into a tenancy agreement ("Tenancy Agreement") for the Defendant to rent about 10.3 acres (449,798 square feet) of the Land for a 2-year term from 16 January 2015 to 15 January 2017 on a monthly rental of RM146,184.35. Thereafter, by letters dated 16 April 2015, 11 September 2015, 20 February 2017, 12 December 2018, 25 September 2019, 6-10آ¬2019, 14 January 2021, 11 October 2021 and 28 January 2022, the tenancy relationship was extended from 16 January 2017 to 15 January 2023 with revised rented areas and rental rates.

[5] Based on these letters and the Statement of Agreed Facts, the following summarizes the changes in agreement on the tenancy of the Land by the Defendant from time to time:

[6] As summarized above, the Defendant's tenancy of the 27 acres was to have ended in stages as follows:

a) On 31 March 2022 with the return of 12 acres of the Land.

b) On 31 July 2022 with the return of 5 acres of the Land

c) On 15 January 2023 with the return of the last 10 acres of the Land

[7] The unchallenged correspondence between the parties ("Series of Correspondence") showed the following:

a) On 28 March 2022, the Plaintiff sent an email to remind the Defendant to take steps to surrender 12 acres by 1 April 2022

b) On 29 March 2022, the Defendant replied to say that it was taking steps, sought a 2-week extension and proposed an "L Shape" area for the remaining 15 acres

c) On 6 April 2022, the Plaintiff sent an email with the following message:

(i) the Defendant's steps to deliver the vacant possession of the 12 Acres was still very slow;

(ii) the Plaintiff shall continue to bill the Defendant for the whole twenty-seven (27) acres and/or 1,215,844 square feet of the said Land until the d