(Datuk Mohd. Saari Bin Yusoff H)

In it's application (enc. 39) under O. 14 RHC 1980, plaintiff applies for the following relief:

i) ;Defendan ke 532 dalam tindakan ini menyerahkan milikan kosong untuk bahagian tanah yang diduduki olehnya atas hartanah yang dimiliki oleh plaintif yang dipegang di bawah P.T. 391 dan P.T. 392, Seksyen 90, Bandar Kuala Lumpur dalam masa tujuh (7) hari dari tarikh penghakiman ini;

ii) ;Defendan ke 532 membayar plaintif gantirugi setelah ianya ditaksirkan oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini;

iii) ;Defendan ke 532 membayar plaintif faedah atas jumlah gantirugi yang ditaksirkan pada kadar 8% setahun bermula dari tarikh yang dianggap [2] sesuai dan adil oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini hingga penyelesaian penuh gantirugi tersebut oleh defendan ke 532;

iv) ;Segala kos yang berhubungkait dengan permohonan ini dibayar oleh defendan ke 532 kepada plaintif; dan

v) ;Kos tindakan di dalam ini terhadap defendan ke 532 dibayar oleh defendan ke 532 kepada plaintif.

2. The learned SAR granted the application, hence this appeal by defendant no. 532.

3. En. Siva, counsel for plaintiff, informed the court that defendant was not in occupation of land held under PT 392. Hence, for purpose of this appeal, this court is concerned only with land held under PT 391, Seksyen 90 Bandar Kuala Lumpur (hereinafter referred to as "the said land").

Undisputed facts

4. Plaintiff (P for short) is the registered owner of the said land held under a QT. Defendant (D for short) was and is still occupying and using the said land as workshop by having two structures on it. [3]

5. Three month's notice to quit was given to D dated 28th December 1995 followed by one month's notice dated 28th March 1996, which notices were received by D.

Observation

6. Since a writ would be the most appropriate mode of commencing action against D herein and if D had no defence to P's claim for trespass, it would not be inappropriate for P to resort to O. 14 RHC 1980 for purpose of obtaining summary judgment against D. It seems to me that there is nothing in law to prohibit P from applying for summary judgment under O. 14 for recovery of possession of land as here.

7. The only prohibition are those set out in O. 14 r. 1 (2) and (3) RHC 1980 wherein it is stated that O. 14 procedure cannot be utilised for the following claims:

i) ;libel;

ii) ;slander;

iii) ;malicious prosecution;

iv) ;false imprisonment;

v) ;seduction;

vi) ;breach of promise of marriage;

vii) ;a claim based on fraud; [4]

viii) ;a claim to which O. 81 RHC applies i.e. claims for :-

(a) ;specific performance of an agreement for the sale, purchase or exchange of any property, or for the grant or assignment of a lease of any property, with or without an alternative claim for damages; or

(b) ;for the rescission of such an agreement; or

(c) ;for the forfeiture or return of any deposit made under such an agreement.

See National Company for Foreign Trade v Kayu Raya Sdn. Bhd. [1984] 2 MLJ 300 at 301 - 302, FC.

8. However, the above is not in issue. For the purpose of this proceeding, issue for determination is whether the defence has raised triable issue on the following ground:

i) ;D holder of TOL

ii) ;no fixed boundary as no final title) was issued in respect of the said land. [5]

Whether D is a TOL holder

9. TOL not exhibited and no explanation was given for ommission to do so. However, what is exhibited are two documents (Ex. A). The documents are issued by DBKL under s. 148 Local Government Act 1976. I agree with En. Siva that the two documents are notice of demand by DBKL for payment of arrears. Further, it is noted that although the words "State Land" being mentioned in the documents, there is nothing to indicate that the figures 5450 and 5708 stated therein refer to the said land (PT 391).

10. Further, if it is true that D is the holder of TOL, plan showing the area applied for as envisaged in Form 4A under section 67 (4) NLC 1965 is not exhibited. Regarding the sketch plan (Ex.