SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 MarsdenLR 1137

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
WISMA PERKASA SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
WEATHERFORD (M) SDN BHD & ANOR – Respondent


Table of Content
1. background of tenancy and claims for holding over. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. claims for double rent and defenses against them. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 15 , 17 , 18 , 22 , 30)
3. discretion in enforcing double rent. (Para 35 , 39 , 53 , 54)

[1] The counsel for 1st Defendant has in his written submissions well set out the facts and issues, which I have adopted in large measure and set them out below.

Background Facts

[2] The Plaintiff is the registered owner of a commercial building known as Rohas Perkasa. The Defendants on the other hand were tenants of the Plaintiff. In this action, the Plaintiff is suing the Defendants for holding over of the respective demised premises occupied by them as tenants after the expiry of the tenancies of the 11th, 12th and 14th floors of Rohas Perkasa.

[3] The 1st Defendant, at all material times, occupied and was in possession of:-

(a) part of the 11th floor, West Wing, Rohas Perkasa, measuring approximately 5,668 square foot (hereafter "the 11th floor demised premises"); and

(b) part of the 12th floor, West Wing and East Wing (portion), Rohas Perkasa, measuring approximately 14,940 square foot (hereafter "the 12th floor demised premises"

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top