Management corporations can lawfully restrict access to common facilities for non-payment of service charges, as established by the Strata Management Act and relevant regulations.

JUDGMENT

John Lee Kien How @ Mohd Johan Lee JC:

Introduction

[1] This is the plaintiff's claim ("this claim") for, amongst others, loss of possession and occupation of plaintiff's property one unit of condominium known as Unit No. 13-1 ("the unit"), located at 2Hampshire Apartment at No. 10, Persiaran 2Hampshire, 50450 Kuala Lumpur ("the said apartment").

Background

[2] The plaintiff was the owner of the unit. Meanwhile, the defendant is the management corporation established under the Strata Management Act 2013 (" SMA 2013") for the said apartment. The plaintiff had purchased the unit from one Charles Erik Jobson via a sale and purchase agreement ("SPA") with a purchase price of RM2,221,720.

[3] On 22 February 2010, the plaintiff executed a deed of mutual covenants ("the DMC") with Prosper Land & Properties Sdn Bhd, the developer of the said apartment. Somewhere in 2017, the plaintiff managed to rent out the unit to one Tiew Boon Jin ("the tenant") for a period of three years at a monthly rental of RM6,000. However, the tenancy was short-lived allegedly due to the problem that arose between the plaintiff and the defendant.

[4] By virtue of the DMC, the defendant imposed and collected service charges, contributions towards the sinking fund and other charges from all unit owners of the said apartment. On 11 September 2017, the defendant sent a notice of demand to the plaintiff demanding the payment of all outstanding sum totalling RM145,634.77. The said notice had stated that if the plaintiff failed to settle such payment within 14 days from the date of the notice, all Lift Access Cards ("LAC") to the unit would be blocked and the plaintiff was also barred from using the common facilities of the said apartment.

[5] Subsequently, on 27 September 2017, the plaintiff sent an email to the defendant proposing to settle the amount by paying RM3,000 per month. However, the defendant, in reply, had rejected the proposal and stated that the LAC to the unit and the intercom system would remain deactivated until all of the amount due was settled.

[6] As the plaintiff was not satisfied with the defendant's response, he filed this claim against the defendant. The plaintiff was, in essence, seeking the following:

(i) a declaration that the acts of the defendant in denying access to the plaintiff's unit is unlawful and illegal;

(ii) a declaration that the defendant is to allow the plaintiff in possession of the unit immediately without any restrictions and restraints;

(iii) an interim injunction (pending the disposal of this action by this court) restraining the defendants, its officers, managers, staff, contractors, assignees, agents and/or any persons claiming thereunder from preventing (by uplifting the inaccessibility to the plaintiff's unit) and or harassing the plaintiff and/or plaintiff's tenant and/or persons authorised by the plaintiff to enter and or take possession of the unit;

(iv) an interim injunction restraining the defendant, its officers, managers, staff, contractors, assignees, agents and/or any persons claiming thereunder from applying to the Commissioner of Building for the attachment of the unit or any other actions;

(v) an injunction restraining the defendant from preventing the plaintiff and/or the plaintiff's tenant and/or persons authorised by the plaintiff to enter and occupy the unit at all material times;

(vi) an order that the defendant pays damages to the plaintiff for the loss of the benefit of the tenancy agreement in the sum of RM216,000;

(vii) damages for unlawful possession of the unit;

(viii) special damages and general damages to be assessed;

(ix) liberty to apply for consequential orders;

(x) costs; and

(xi) further or other relief and/or order which this court thinks fit and just to grant.

[7] Subsequently, the defendant filed its defence and counterclaimed against the plaintiff. The defendant in its counterclaim seeks the following:

(i) the sum of RM178,171.22;

(ii) interests on the sum of RM178,171.22 at the rate of 10% per