Back
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
PRESTO SUPERMARKETS (SUBANG) SDN BHD & ORS – Appellant
Versus
ATTIC HOLDINGS SDN BHD – Respondent
The grounds of appeal are based on several key issues related to the interpretation and enforcement of the contractual clauses, as well as the assessment of the landlord’s obligations and conduct. The appellant contends that the trial court erred in upholding a clause that completely bars early termination of the tenancy, arguing that such a clause is contrary to principles of fairness and good faith in contractual relations (!) . They assert that the court failed to properly consider the context of the entire agreement and the necessity of reasonable interpretation, which could have rendered the clause unenforceable (!) .
Furthermore, the appellant challenges the court’s conclusion that the landlord’s actions in maintaining the premises were reasonable and did not constitute a breach of fundamental obligations (!) (!) . They argue that the evidence was not sufficiently evaluated and that the landlord’s conduct, particularly regarding issues like flooding and water leakage, was inadequate and unjustified, thereby justifying the tenant’s early termination (!) .
In addition, the grounds of appeal include the assertion that the court mistakenly applied the law in assessing claims for damages and penalties, such as double rent. The appellant claims that the court did not properly scrutinize whether the conditions for such claims were met, especially in relation to the tenant’s occupation status and the landlord’s breach (!) (!) (!) .
Finally, the appellant contends that the court erred in its interpretation of contractual clauses that impose penalties or restrictions. They argue that these clauses were excessively harsh, inconsistent with the overall purpose of the agreement, and contrary to legal principles that uphold fairness and public policy (!) (!) . The appeal is therefore grounded on the assertion that the trial court’s decisions were based on an incorrect application of legal principles regarding contractual fairness, obligations, and the assessment of breach.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] This appeal emanates from a dispute between a Landlord of a shopping mall and their Tenant, who had taken a tenancy of approximately 18,550 square feet of lettable premises at the Lower Ground Floor of the complex, known as Citta Mall, in the locality of Ara Damansara, Selangor. The Landlord filed a suit in the High Court, claiming that the Tenant had pre-maturely terminated a fixed -term tenancy for the demised premises. The Landlord sued for outstanding rentals, double rental, and rental for the remaining period of the fixed term tenancy as well as reinstatement costs. The Landlord also claimed general damages.
[2] The Tenant filed a counterclaim for their set-up costs, losses incurred as a result of the forced sale of their equipment, loss of sales, recovery of rental deposit, and general damages. After a full trial, the learned Judge allowed the Landlord's claim, save for general damages (which the High Court held was not proven). The Tenant's counterclaim was dismissed. This is an appeal by the Defendants against the decision of the learned Judge of the High Court dated 26 June 2019, allowing the Plaintiff's claim (save for general dam
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
