Back
2020 MarsdenLR 1015
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
TOYS BOX MARKETING (M) SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
PENN-MART TOYS (M) SDN BHD – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: WA-12BNCVC-140-12/2018]
The first Notice to Quit was waived due to acceptance of rent by the landlord, rendering the subsequent notice invalid, resulting in a ruling in favor of the Defendant.
Headnote:(A) Civil Law – Landlord and Tenant – Notices to Quit – Validity of notices contested; Court found prior notice waived due to tenant's accepted payments; Second notice deemed unreasonable and ineffective – Appeal allowed, overturning lower court's ruling. (Paras 20, 36, 46)
(B) Civil Procedure – No case to answer – Burden remains on Plaintiff to establish facts even with a 'no case' submission from Defendant – Lower court's brief consideration deemed insufficient. (Paras 66-72)
Facts of the case: This appeal concerns a tenancy dispute where the Plaintiff (Penn-Mart Toys) claims vacant possession from the Defendant (Toys Box) following multiple Notices to Quit issued by the prior landlord, which were accepted by the Defendant until the final transfer to the Plaintiff. (Paras 1-5)
Findings of Court: The appellate court found errors in the lower court's assessment of the Notices to Quit and the Defendant's status, ruling that the first notice was effectively waived and the second was insufficiently communicated. (Paras 19-80)
Issues: The core issues revolved around the validity of the Notices to Quit, whether waiver occurred, and if the Defendant could be classified as a trespasser. (Paras 10-11)
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that due to the accepted rental payments after the issuance of the first Notice to Quit, the first notice had been waived; the second was deemed unreasonable and thus ineffective. (Paras 30, 38, 49)
Result: The appeal was allowed, and the decision of the lower court was overruled. (Paras 80)
(Enclosure 1)
Introduction
[1] The parties are referred to as they were before the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court in Guaman No: WA-B52NVCV-321-06/2018.
[2] This is an appeal by the Defendant (Toys Box) against the decision of the Sessions Court dated 13 December 2018 in Guaman No: WA-B52NVCV-321-06/2018, in allowing the claim by the Plaintiff (Penn-Mart Toys) for vacant possession of the Plaintiff's property and in ordering damages to the Plaintiff for the Defendant's failure to hand over vacant possession of the same by/on 26 March 2018. The property is located at No. 338, Ground Floor & Mezzanine Floor, Jalan Raja Laut, 50350 Kuala Lumpur.
Decision Of This Court On Appeal
[3] On appeal, after having appraised the Records of Appeal, the Grounds of Judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and having considered the submissions by the learned counsels for both the parties, I allowed the Defendant's appeal herein. The Defendant's appeal was allowed on the following grounds.
Factual Background And Chronology Of Events
The Plaintiff's Case
[4] The Plaintiff's case in brief is as narrated at pages 34 to 37 of the Record of Appeal. In essence, the Plaintiff's case is as follow:
(i) Raya Realty Sdn Bhd (Raya Realty) is the previous owner of a property located at Lot 1623, Seksyen 46, Bandar Kuala Lumpur Daerah Kuala Lumpur, Negeri Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur (the property);
(ii) Vide a Tenancy Agreement dated 26 July 2010, Raya Realty rented out the property to the Defendant for a tenure of 3 years ie, from 1 August 2010 until 31 July 2013 (Exhibit "P8" - 'Rekod Rayuan' pages 136-151 referred to);
(iii) 31 July 2013 - When the Tenancy Agreement expired on 31 July 2013, no fresh tenancy agreement was entered into between the parties. Thereafter, the tenancy was for a month to month basis;
(iv) 20 February 2018 - Vide letter dated 20 February 2018, Raya Realty informed the Defendant that they had sold the property (to the Plaintiff) and thereby gave the Defendant a "one (1) month notice to quit and deliver vacant possession on or before 31 March 2018" (the first Notice to Quit) ('Rekod Rayuan' pages 160 referred to). The Defendant did not dispute the service of the said Notice.
(v) 26 March 2018 - Raya Realty finalised the sale of the property to the Plaintiff vide a Sales and Purchase Agreement dated 26 March 2018. It was agreed that the sale was without vacant possession and the Plaintiff acknowledged that the property was then still tenanted to the Defendant on a month to month basis (Exhibit "P1' - 'Rekod Rayuan' pages 162-178 referred to);
(vi) 31 March 2018 - The Defendant did not hand over vacant possession to Raya Realty by/on the 31 March 2018 and continued to pay rental to Raya Realty for the subsequent months of March, April and May;
(vii) 4 May 2018 - Vide their solicitor's letter dated 4 May 2018 the Plaintiff served a Notice to Quit (the second Notice to Quit) on the Defendant, demanding that the Defendant hand over vacant possession by/on 15 May 2018 ('Rekod Rayuan' page 179 referred to);
(viii) 15 May 2018 - Yet again, come 15 May 2018, the Defendant failed to comply and continued to remain on the property;
(ix) 31 May 2018 - The Plaintiff only became the registered owner of the property commencing from 31 May 2018;
(x) 7 June 2018 - Vide letter dated 7 June 2018, Raya Realty informed Defendant of its intention to pay the deposit paid by the Defendant under the Tenancy Agreement to the new owners (Plaintiff) for the purpose of paying the Defendant's rental of the property ("Rekod Rayuan" page 197 referred to).
[5] Hence, premised on the above facts, on 11 June 2018 the Plaintiff commenced Guaman No: WA-B52NCVC-321-06/2018 in the Sessions Court against the Defendant claiming inter alia, for vacant possession. It is the Plaintiff's case that the Defendant having failed to hand over vacant possession by 15 May 2018 is a trespasser on the property effective 16 May 2018.
The Defendant's Case
[6] In its Statement of D
