Petitioner Advocates:Cecil WM Abraham,Idza Hajar Ahmad Idzam ,Respondent Advocate: Cyrus v. Das,Gan Techiong,Steven Thiru,Faisal Moideen,Darmain Segaran

Based on the provided legal document, the grounds to appeal may include the following:

1. Misinterpretation or improper construction of contractual clauses regarding the date of vacant possession and completion, which affected the court’s findings on when vacant possession was effectively delivered (!) (!) (!) .

2. Erroneous assessment of the evidence related to the confirmation of vacant possession, particularly the significance of the handwritten note by the appellant’s representative and the interpretation of the joint inspection process, which may have led to a wrong conclusion on the actual date of possession (!) (!) (!) .

3. Incorrect application of the contractual terms that define the automatic termination clause, especially in relation to whether the clause was enforceable and whether the breach constituted a fundamental breach warranting automatic termination, which could be grounds for challenging the validity of the court’s order on contract termination (!) (!) (!) .

4. Inadequate consideration of the contractual obligations and the circumstances surrounding the automatic extension provisions, including whether the extension was validly exercised or whether the breach was properly established, which could impact the court’s decision on the validity of termination and forfeiture (!) (!) (!) .

5. Flawed findings or failure to properly evaluate the existence or non-existence of fiduciary or trust relationships, particularly in light of the conduct of the parties and the authority granted, which could be grounds to challenge the court’s refusal to declare such a relationship (!) (!) (!) .

6. Errors in assessing the remedies available, especially regarding the calculation of damages, profits, or income derived from the land or building, and whether the court correctly applied principles relating to unjust enrichment, account of profits, or damages (!) (!) (!) .

7. Procedural or evidentiary issues, such as the court’s acceptance or rejection of certain evidence or the manner of construing written confirmations and conduct of the parties, which may have led to an incorrect factual or legal conclusion (!) (!) (!) .

8. The court’s approach to the interpretation of contractual language, especially the construction of the special conditions and whether it appropriately reflected the true intent of the parties, which could be grounds for appeal if the interpretation was unreasonable or inconsistent with commercial realities (!) (!) .

These grounds collectively suggest that an appeal could be based on misinterpretation of contractual provisions, improper evaluation of evidence, procedural irregularities, or incorrect application of legal principles relating to contract termination, fiduciary duties, and remedies.