A tenancy agreement remains valid even when one party alleges illegalities, provided the parties are aware of the terms and obligations.

Yong Leou Shin SCJ:

Grounds Of Judgment

A. Background Facts

[1] The Plaintiff is the owner of the Premise property whereas the 1st Defendant was the tenant to the Premises based on the Tenancy Agreement. The Second Defendant is one of the Director and Shareholder from the 1st Defendant company who had signed the Tenancy Agreement. The Plaintiff's claim against the 2nd Defendant is premised on the undertaking given by the 2nd Defendant as contained in para 7(o) of the Tenancy Agreement.

[2] The tenure of the Tenancy is for 2 years from 1 February 2019 to 31 January 2021 and the monthly rent payable is RM6,600.00 per month due and payable on or before the 7th day of each month.

[3] The 1st Defendant had only paid rent for the months of February, March and April 2019. The Defendants failed to pay any rental thereafter.

[4] The Plaintiff is claiming the arrears of rental and the repayment of the outstanding utility charges incurred during the period of time when the 1st Defendant was occupying the Premises. The Plaintiff has also claimed for double rental from 1 August 2019 to the date vacant possession was delivered to the Plaintiff and the repair and rectification cost to restore the Premises to its good working condition after the Plaintiff received the vacant possession of the Premises from the 1st Defendant.

[5] In the amended Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff is claiming the following reliefs:

(a) Arrears of Rental in the sum of RM129,871,00 as at 21 December 2020 the date on which vacant possession was returned to the Plaintiff;

(b) Double Rental in the sum of RM110,071.00 for the months of August 2019 until 21 December 2020 the date on which vacant possession was returned to the Plaintiff;

(c) The sum of RM7,438.40 being the outstanding amount of electricity bill due and owing to Tenaga Nasional Berhad as at 12 July 2019;

(d) The sum of RM1,057.55 being the outstanding amount in respect of the water bill due and owing to Syarikat Bekalan Air Selangor Sdn Bhd from 13 July 2019 to 10 December 2020;

(e) The sum of RM17,000.00 for the repair and rectification of the premises subsequent to the delivery of vacant possession of the same;

(f) The security deposits paid pursuant to the Tenancy Agreement dated 16 January 2019 be forfeited;

(g) Interest at the rate of 8% per annum calculated on a daily basis on the Judgment sum from May 2019 until date of full and final settlement thereof;

(h) Damages to be assessed by the Court in respect of the losses suffered as a result of the Defendants' failure to deliver vacant possession to the Plaintiff from August 2019 until 21 December 2020;

(i) Cost to be assessed on the basis of solicitor own client;

(j) Such further orders and/or other reliefs as deemed just and suitable by this the Court;

[6] The following witnesses were called during trial:

B. Issues To Be Tried

[7] This Court agreed that issues to be tried for this case are as follows:

i. Is the Tenancy Agreement duly executed between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant a valid and enforceable contract?

ii. Is the Plaintiff entitled to claim double rental from the month of August 2019?

iii. Is the Plaintiff entitled to claim the repair and rectification cost to restore the Demised Premises to its good working condition subsequent to the Plaintiff having received vacant possession of the Demised Premises?

iv. Is the 2nd Defendant liable to pay the amount due and owing by the 1st Defendant to the Plaintiff?

C. The Parties' Contentions And Findings

i. Is The Tenancy Agreement Duly Executed Between The Plaintiff And The 1St Defendant A Valid And Enforceable Contract?

[8] The Defendants alleged that