2011 MarsdenLR 3548

TENGKU MAIMUN TUAN MAT
NASHIR BEE @ MUMTAJ BEE V NAINA MOHAMED – Appellant
Versus
KHELASS SDN BHD – Respondent

The court emphasized the necessity of substantiating claims for property damage under the best evidence rule, dismissing the plaintiff's claims while affirming the tenant's right to a refund of the rental deposit.

Headnote:(A) Contract Law - Lease Agreement - Effect of Unilateral Termination - Landlord's entitlement to damages for property damage due to tenant's vacating - Sections pertaining to notice provisions in periodic tenancy considered. (Para 1-15)

(B) Evidence - Best Evidence Rule - Requirement for the maker of a document to testify for admissibility. (Para 11-15)

(C) Counterclaims - Right of tenant to refund of rent deposit under lease terms. (Para 4, 11-14)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff claimed damages for unilateral termination of lease and property damage allegedly caused by the defendant after vacating the premises without proper notice and inspection. Defendants contended that all necessary notices were provided, adhering to the legal requirements.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the plaintiff failed to substantiate the claims for damages, while the defendant was entitled to a refund of the rental deposit as per the lease agreement.

Issues: The main issues were the validity of the termination notice given by the defendant, the extent of property damage caused by the defendant, the plaintiff's entitlement to damages, and the defendant's right to the deposit.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that damage claims must be substantiated by evidence, particularly under the best evidence rule, and found the plaintiff's claims were not proven. The termination notice provided by the defendant fulfilled legal requirements.

Result: Plaintiff's claims dismissed; defendant's claim for deposit refund allowed.