Purchasers occupying property are liable for maintenance charges despite not being registered proprietors under relevant legislation.

[1] This is the appellant/plaintiff 's appeal from the decision of the Magistrate dismissing the appellant's claim with cost after full trial. This appeal deals with a novel and important question of whether a management corporation has a valid claim against persons who have purchased and occupied a parcel in a subdivided building but have yet to be registered as a proprietor on the strata title of the parcel.

[2] This court has concluded for the reasons stated in this Judgment that the Strata Management Act 2013 (" SMA 2013") read and construed together with the Strata Title Act 1985 (" STA 1985") applies to this case. As both counsel for the appellant and respondents were not able to refer to any case law relating to the question at hand, this court's decision is largely based on its interpretation of the relevant statutes as applied to the facts of this case.

Overview Of Facts And Claim

[3] The appellant's claim against the respondents is for the sum of RM81,931.81 being the outstanding sum for maintenance/service charges, sinking fund, sewerage charges and water charges, quit rent, insurance for the period and late payment interest ("Outstanding Charges") from 18 May 2004 to 14 July 2015.

[4] The appellant is a management corporation of the subdivided building known as Megan Avenue 1 ("Building"). It came into existence on 6 May 2004 on the opening of the Building's book of strata register pursuant to s 39(1) of the STA 1985. The appellant is a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal s 39(2) of 1985. It may sue and be sued s 39(3) of 1985.

[5] The respondents are the purchasers of the property known as Unit C- 7-4, Block C, Megan Avenue 1, No 189 Jalan Tun Razak, 50400 Kuala Lumpur ("the Parcel"). They have been occupying the Parcel and carrying out their legal practice in the name of Messrs Harcharan S Sidhu & Associates from the Parcel since 2005.

[6] The crux of the respondents' defence against the appellant's claim is that they do not come within the definition of "proprietor" under the STA 1985 and the SMA 2013 and are therefore, not liable for the Outstanding Charges.

[7] The learned Magistrate had dismissed the appellant's claim on the grounds that:

(a) the respondents are not "proprietors" of the Parcel under the Strata Title Act 1985;

(b) they are not beneficial owners of the Parcel, notwithstanding having purchased the Parcel for cash.

The learned Magistrate in her judgment stated:

"It is very unfortunate that the hands of this court are bound by the interpretation of the word "proprietor" which refers to "registered proprietor". In fact, it doesn't even refer to "beneficial owner" or even purchaser"

She also held that the appellant's claim was time-barred under the Limitation Act 1953 and dismissed its alternative claim based on the principles of quantum meruit because it failed to adduce any evidence during the trial that services were rendered by the appellant to the respondents.

[8] In order to decide whether the respondents are liable for the Outstanding Charges, this court must determine:

First: which legislation(s) governing strata titles and the management of subdivided building is/are applicable to this case;

Second: are the respondents "proprietors" of the Parcel under the legislation(s); and

Third: can the appellant recover the sum incurred for the maintenance and management of the Building from the respondents?

Applicable Legislation

[9] The Strata Title Act 1985 (" STA 1985") was the first legislation enacted by Parliament specifically to govern the subdivision of buildings into parcels and subsequent issuance of strata titles for the individual parcels in Peninsular Malaysia. In a paper entitled Strata Management i