The covenant for quiet enjoyment does not protect against disruptions caused by third-party actions not authorized by the landlord.

Introduction

[1] The core issue in these four appeals which were heard together is whether the landlord ought to be liable when the tenant's quiet and peaceful possession of the premises is disrupted by the acts of a party who was not acting under the authority of the landlord.

[2] Finding that the landlord should not be liable, this Court had allowed all the four appeals which resulted in each of the Appellants (defendants) succeeding in their respective applications to have the action taken against them struck out pursuant to O 18 r 19(1)(b) and (d) of the Rules of 2012 (" ROC "). This is the grounds for the decision and the parties shall be referred to as they were in the Court below.

Salient facts

[3] The first plaintiff is the tenant of premises used as a restaurant under five separate tenancy agreements all dated 12 April 2019 ("5 TA"). The second plaintiff suing under its business name of Flower Drum Restaurant is a sole proprietorship and alleged to be the operator of the restaurant. One of the directors of the first plaintiff is the sole proprietor of the second plaintiff.

[4] The premises are made up of 10 parcels housed within 5 units of double storey shop-lots adjoining one another with the internal party walls taken down to form one large unit (the "Common Premises") and to be used as a restaurant.

[5] The Common Premises are located along Jalan Sultan Azlan Shah Utara, Taman Ipoh Selatan, 31400 Ipoh, Perak and are owned by the defendants as follows:

[6] The first plaintiff is the tenant under the 5 TA which provided that the Common Premises were let out on an as-is-where-is basis. There is only one main entrance to the Common Premises.

[7] Within the same month of the 5 TA having been made, the first plaintiff engaged contractors to renovate and furnish the Common Premises. These works were estimated to be completed by the end of May 2019 and the restaurant to be ready for business with a grand opening scheduled for 1 June 2019. Bookings were accepted since early May 2019.

[8] However, on 23 May 2019, the Bailiff from the Ipoh Magistrate's Court accompanied by a solicitor for the judgment creditor, Supreme Range Sdn Bhd ("JC") attended at the Common Premises. They were armed with a Writ of Seizure and Sale ("WSS") issued under Ipoh Magistrates Court (Application for Execution) No AA-76WS-93-04/2019.

[9] The WSS was issued against the former tenant of the Common Premises by the name of Ipoh East Ocean Seafood Restaurant Sdn Bhd ("Former Tenant") for failing to satisfy a debt under a judgment obtained by the JC.

[10] None of the defendants have any dealings with the JC. In short, the WSS was not caused to be issued by any of the defendants.

[11] The WSS was executed only upon Units 41A, 41-1 and 41-2 ie part of the units belonging to the first, second and third as well as the fourth defendants. However, as there is only one common entrance located at Unit 41-1 servicing the Common Premises, access to the whole of the Common Premises was effectively restricted.

[12] The workers of the contractor working on renovating and furnishing the Common Premises were all asked to leave when the WSS was executed on 23 May 2019, and were only allowed to return to work 10 days later on 1 June 2019 after the WSS was discontinued on 30 May 2019.

[13] The plaintiffs asserted their plans were disrupted. Their restaurant could only commence business on 1 July 2019. They alleged they suffered damages due to the 10 days' disruption brought about by the execution of the WSS.

[14] The plaintiffs' claimed that all the five defendants are to be jointly and severally liable for:

i) general damages for loss of the use of the Common Premises from 23 May 2019 to 1 June 2019;

ii) general damages fo