A landlord may terminate a tenancy for unauthorized alterations by a tenant, and vicarious liability does not apply for defamation without direct publication responsibility.

[1] The appellant (the defendant before the High Court) herein had appealed against the decision of the learned High Court Judge, Alor Star who had allowed the respondent's (the plaintiff below) claim after full trial.

[2] The brief background facts are as follows:

The respondents were partners of a business enterprise operating under the style and name of Perniagaan Spanova. The appellant was the owner of Novotel Hotel (said Hotel) which is situated in Sungai Petani, Kedah Darul Aman. Vide agreement dated 1 March 1997, (the said agreement) the appellant had agreed to rent a premise (the said premises) in the said hotel to the respondents for the latter to operate a health spa.

[3] Under the said agreement, the tenancy period was to commence from 1 March 1997 and was for a duration of three years. The parties subsequently entered into a supplemental agreement (the supplemental agreement) in which the following terms were agreed upon:

(a) that the rental be reduced from RM16,500.00 to RM14,025.00 as requested by the respondents; and

(b) the appellant be allowed to revise the monthly rental of the said Health Spa.

[4] This supplemental agreement was effective from 1 June 1998.

[5] On 19 May 1999, whilst conducting an inspection on the said premise, the respondents discovered that there was corrosion (on the said premises) which required immediate remedial measures to avoid any structural damage to the building.

[6] Thus, the respondents informed the appellant vide letter of 20 May 1999 that due to the proposed remedial works, the said health spa have to be closed, the supplemental agreement suspended and the rental ceased to be payable until the Health Spa was rendered fit for use.

[7] On or about 24 May 1999, the appellant was informed by its maintenance manager that the respondents had unlawfully tampered with one of the shower outlets in the bathroom by connecting pipes from the hot shower to fill the jacuzzi. The appellant then re-entered and took possession of the said premises. The appellant contended that, by connecting pipes from the hot shower outlet to fill up the jacuzzi, the respondents had breached the said agreement. Consequently, a letter was issued the following day on 25 May 1999 by the appellant terminating the said agreement pursuant to cl 6(c) of the same. The relevant paragraphs of the said letter read as follows:

"Our officers called at the health spa yesterday to arrange for an inspection of the premises prior to starting the renovation works mentioned in our letter of May 20, 1999. At the premises, our officers noticed that you have without our consent and authority tampered with one of the shower outlets, by connecting pipes from the same to the jacuzzi. It was apparent that you have been filling up the jacuzzi using heater water drawn from the shower and not, as should be the case from the jacuzzi's boiler.

By not using the jacuzzi's boiler you saved on your electricity charges but by the same token, you had at our expense used water from an unauthorised source for which you need only to pay a flat charge of RM350 per month, irrespective of the quantity used and whether heated or otherwise. We believe your action is avariciously motivated and constitute theft.

Your unauthorised tampering of the fittings at the Health Spa also show a wanton disregard for the safety of the building. We are in the hospitality business and such an act is unacceptable to us.

for the aforesaid reasons, we have pursuant to cl 6(c) retaken possession of the health spa and the said tenancy agreement is hereby terminated".

[emphasis added]

[8] The respondents then filed