A registered proprietor cannot claim rental from occupants without a tenancy agreement, while occupants may be compensated for improvements made under a belief of ownership as per Section 28(2) of the Civil Law Act 1956.

Introduction

[1] This dispute arises from a long-standing squabble concerning a parcel of land held under as H.S.(M) 210, PT 1909, Mukim Ampang, Daerah Kuala Lumpur, Negeri Wilayah Persekutuan ("Property").

[2] The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the Property. He purchased the Property from one Bakshi Singh a/l Kishen Singh.

[3] The 1st defendant is the executrix of the Estate of the late Jit Singh a/l Kishen Singh ("Jit Singh"). The late Jit Singh was the brother of Bakshi Singh. The parties named as the 2nd defendants are the individuals who have been in occupation of the Property.

[4] The plaintiff initially obtained a judgment in his favour for vacant possession of the Property. However, in March 2017 the Court of Appeal allowed the defendants' appeal in part. The Court of Appeal remitted two questions to this Court for determination, namely:

(a) whether the plaintiff has the right to claim rental and if so, how much is the rate of monthly rental rate and for how long since the plaintiff purchased the Property without vacant possession, and

(b) whether the defendants have spent money for the care and maintenance of the building on the land and if so, what is the quantum to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants under s 28(2) Civil Law Act.

[5] Pursuant to the remittal, the plaintiff claims that he is entitled to rental in the sum of RM1,000.00 per month. The plaintiff contends that such rental ought to be calculated from 12 April 2000 being the date the Property was registered in his name until the date vacant possession is delivered.

[6] The defendants dispute their obligation and the plaintiffs entitlement to rental. The defendants posit that there is no obligation on their part to pay rental to the plaintiff. In response to the questions posed by the Court of Appeal, the defendants argue that they should be entitled to compensation under s 28(2) of the Civil Law Act 1956 for having expended monies to rebuild the house situated on the Property in or around 1995.

[7] Upon evaluation of the evidence and consideration of the submissions advanced by both parties, I make the following findings:

(a) the plaintiff is not entitled to claim rental from the defendants for the period during which the Property remained in the occupation of the defendants, and

(b) the defendants are entitled to compensation under s 28(2) of the Civil Law Act 1956 for expenditure incurred in rebuilding the house on the Property.

The reasons for these findings are set out below.

Brief Background Of Facts

[8] The Property was initially registered in the name of Bakshi Singh a/l Kishen Singh. He was the brother of Jit Singh. It was the defendants' case that the Property was subject to a family trust agreement dated 27 December 1963 ("Trust Agreement"). This Trust Agreement was allegedly entered into between four brothers, namely, Bakshi Singh, Jit Singh, Dalip Singh and Pauja Singh. All four were sons of Kishen Singh.

[9] Pursuant to the Trust Agreement, the Property was to be held in equal shares by the four brothers. The Trust Agreement purported to create a trust arrangement whereby each brother was a partner in the Property notwithstanding the fact that legal title stood solely in the name of Bakshi Singh.

[10] The late Jit Singh and his family, including the present defendants, had occupied the Property continuously since the 1950s. In or around 1995, the existing structure on the land had fallen into a stat