Ownership rights over car-parks must be consistent with statutory provisions prohibiting independent dealing of accessory parcels separate from the main units.

[1] These are my grounds of judgment after a full trial. This is a case concerning a management corporation's claim over car-parks in a condominium project. The dispute is, inter-alia, over the developer's obligation under the approved development order to provide 218 visitor's car-parks and the legality of the developer's purported sale of 45 units of condominium to a single purchaser (alleged to be "closely related" to the developer) together with 439 car-parks as accessory parcels which are said to be attached or appurtenant to these units. The 439 car-parks are all located at the perimeter car-park within the condominium. Essentially, the management corporation is seeking to impugn the developer's purported sale of 439 car-parks (less 45 car-parks) to a single purchaser and to claim ownership of the car-parks as part of common property.

[2] The related issue is also whether the purchaser of the 45 units of condominium, as owner of all these car-parks may lawfully commercialise them by renting them out. The rental rate for each car-park is about RM120.00 per month from these 439 car-parks, which would have resulted in an annual rental income of RM632,160.00 for the purchaser. The dispute herein necessitates a consideration of several provisions of the Strata Titles Act 1985 , the National Land Code 1965 and the Strata Management Act 2013.

Parties

[3] The plaintiff is the management corporation of the Palm Spring @ Damansara condominium ("the condominium"). Depending on the context, the condominium shall be interchangeably referred to as "the project". The project is located in the Kota Damansara area. The first defendant ("D1") is the purchaser of 45 units of parcels in the condominium. The second defendant ("D2") is the developer of the condominium. It is alleged that D1 is related to D2 and received a windfall from D2 by the purchase of 45 units together with 439 car-parks. The management corporation shall be interchangeably referred to as "the MC" or "plaintiff'. The MC was formed on 8 January 2008 (p 1, B15). The MC is a body corporate with perpetual succession and can sue and be sued (see: s 17 (4) Strata Titles Act 1985 ). Prior to the MC's formation, the condominium was under the management of the Joint Management Body ("JMB").

[4] The Certificate of Fitness ("CF") for the project was issued on 1 August 2005. Although the MC's certification of incorporation states that it was established on 8 January 2008, the certificate itself was issued on 7 April 2009. The MC's first annual general meeting was held on 11 September 2011. The MC's management committee was formed on 11 September 2011.

[5] The JMB was formed on 5 April 2008. But it appears that all along it was the JMB which was managing the project and not the MC. The Development Order for the project which was issued by the local authority, Majlis Perbandaran Petaling Jaya ("MPPJ") (now known as "Majlis Bandaran Petaling Jaya"- "MBPJ") is dated 9 October 2003("the DO"). The present suit was filed on 29 November 2017. The trial was conducted on 1, 2 and 3 August 2017.

The Problem

[6] I now turn to the problem at hand. It is not a recent one. Rather it is a long standing problem and has been brewing for the past several years. Indeed, less than a year after the CF was issued, it became necessary for MPPJ to intervene in the dispute as the residents association for the condominium had issues with D2 over the visitor's car-parks. In this regard, MPPJ convened a meeting on 23 March 2006, which was chaired by the late Y Bhg Dato' Hj Mohd Mokhtar Bin Hj Ahmad Dahlan. He was the Selangor State Assemblyman for Kota Damansara at the material time. Pursuant to the meeting, MPPJ issued a letter dated 19 April 2006 which was addressed to D2 (p 1