JUDGMENT

KN Segara JCA:

[1] The appellant (JR Lincks Educational Consultants Sdn Bhd) and the respondent (Goh & Sons Enterprise Sdn Bhd), were respectively, the plaintiff and defendant in Melaka High Court Civil Suit No. 22-6-1995 filed on 23 January 1995, whereas the respondent was the plaintiff and the appellant was the defendant, in the Melaka Sessions Court Summons No. 52-211-1995 filed on 10 August 1995. The sessions Court summons was transferred to the High Court and consolidated with the High Court civil suit by order of Court dated 1 November 1996 (p. 29 rekod rayuan A). The trial of the consolidated actions commenced in the High Court on 20 May 1997 and after a full trial, the learned High Court judge dismissed with costs, on 16 September 1998, the claim of the plaintiff in Melaka High Court Civil Suit No. 22-6-1995 and allowed the claim of the plaintiff in Melaka Sessions Court Summons No. 52-211-1995 with costs, and ordered:

(a) That the defendant (J.R.Lincks Educational Consultants Sdn. Bhd.) deliver vacant possession of the premises to the plaintiff (Goh & Sons Enterprise Sdn. Bhd.);

(b) That the defendant pay to the plaintiff arrears of rental at the rate of RM6000 per month from January 1995 till July 1995;

(c) That the defendant pay the plaintiff double rent at the rate of RM12,000 from August 1995 till date of delivery of vacant possession of the premises;

(d) That the defendant pay interest at the rate of 8% per annum on (b) and (c) above.

[2] The appellant, JR Lincks Educational Consultants Sdn Bhd (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff"), dissatisfied with the decision of the learned High Court judge, mounted this appeal on 12 grounds. We are of the view only grounds 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 10 merit serious consideration. The respondent, Goh & Sons Enterprise Sdn Bhd, shall hereinafter be referred to as "the defendant", and, its summons in Melaka Sessions Court shall hereinafter be referred to as "the counterclaim".

[3] The plaintiff and the defendant were at all material times the tenant and landlord, respectively, of the premises known as 52C, 54C, 56C, 58C, 60A, 60B, 60C, 60 (Ground Floor), 60 (Mezzanine Floor), 62A, 62B, 62C, 62 (Ground Floor) and 62 (Mezzanine Floor) Jalan Kampung Hulu, Melaka (hereinafter the 14 shop-lots shall, collectively, be referred to as "the said premises").

[4] In a nut-shell, the plaintiff's claim was for specific performance of the terms of a tenancy of the said premises, viz. a letter dated 22 March 1994 as well as a written tenancy agreement dated 11 April 1994; and/or damages for breach of the terms of the said tenancy agreements. The defendant's counterclaim, on the other hand, was for vacant possession of the said premises together with arrears of rental for the period January - June, 1995; rental for the month of July, 1995; and mesne profit from August 1995 till delivery of vacant possession.

[5] For ease of reference and comprehension, the grounds of appeal which merits serious consideration are reproduced below:

1. The learned trial Judge erred in fact and in law in concluding,

Berkaitan dengan kerugian pertama tidak ada perjanjian penyewaan yang mengakibatkan penguatkuasaan perjanjian itu. Pihak-pihak hanya sedang tawar-menawar untuk satu perjanjian penyewaan yang telah mengakibatkan pelaksanaan perjanjian itu. Maka defendan tidak boleh dipertanggungjawabkan untuk kerugian pertama plaintif;

2. The learned trial Judge was wrong when interpreting special condition No. 10 of the tenancy agreement regarding the lift when holding,

Saya berpuas hati bahawa defendan telah mengambil semua langkah yang perlu untuk mengurus lif tersebut. Plaintif tidak menunjukkan bahawa defendan gagal berusaha sedaya upaya. Selanjutnya, mengenai isu ini plaintif tidak membayar pendahuluan RM200.00 sebulan untuk penyelenggaraan dan servis lif tersebut. Defendan adalah terikat untuk mematuhi syarat ini hanya terma-terma yang diletakkan oleh plaintif dipenuhkan terlebih dahulu oleh plaintif sendiri. Plaint