Landlords may reclaim possession of premises without a court order if tenants abandon premises and breach tenancy agreements.

Introduction

[1] This is a landlord and tenant dispute. The plaintiffs are the tenants. The defendants are the landlords. This action is brought by the plaintiffs against the defendants for the alleged losses suffered and expenses incurred by the plaintiffs as a result of the defendants' purported action, through their agent, in expelling and locking up the Demised Premises in which the plaintiffs were carrying out their food and beverage business. The defendants in turn filed a counterclaim for arrears of the rental. After a full trial, I dismissed the Plaintiffs' claim. I allowed the Defendants' counterclaim. Here are the grounds of my judgment.

Trial

[2] The trial took place over 3 days on 9 November 2022, 10 November 2022 and 29 November 2022. The witnesses who testified at the trial were:

Background Facts

[3] The plaintiffs had entered into a tenancy agreement with the defendants on 5 November 2021 ("Tenancy Agreement") to rent the Demised Premises at No 39 (Ground & Mezzanine Floor), Jalan Icon City, Bukit Tengah, 14000 Bukit Mertajam ("Demised Premises") from 1 December 2021 until 30 November 2023. The plaintiffs operated the business of Thailicious Mookata Restaurant ("Said Restaurant") at the Ground Floor and Zero Bistro & Pub ("Said Bistro") at the Mezzanine Floor of the Demised Premises.

[4] The plaintiffs were contractually bound by cl 2(a), ss 7 and 8 of the First Schedule of the Tenancy Agreement to pay the sum of RM8,800 being the monthly rental to the defendants on or before the 7th day of each month. It was specifically stated under s 5 of the Second Schedule of the Tenancy Agreement that the payment of the monthly rental shall be made by way of post-dated cheques wherein the plaintiffs have handed over 12 post-dated cheques to the defendants, each for the sum of RM8,800 being the monthly rental from January to December 2022. However, the plaintiffs were late for 17 days in paying the January 2022 rental and about 1 month late in paying the February 2022 rental to the defendants and had thereby breached the Tenancy Agreement. In addition, the plaintiffs did not pay the monthly rental for March and April 2022 to the defendants to-date despite several reminders and demands issued to them.

[5] It was contractually agreed under cl 4(a) of the Tenancy Agreement that on the ground of non-payment of monthly rental for 7 days after becoming due and payable by the plaintiffs, the defendants shall be entitled to re-enter upon the Demised Premises and the tenancy shall absolutely determine and all deposits paid shall be forfeited as liquidated damages without prejudice to any right of action of the defendants. Clause 2(b)(i) of the Tenancy Agreement states that the deposits shall not be used to set off against the monthly rental.

[6] The plaintiffs allege that the defendants have instructed their agent ("Said Agent") to lock the main door of the Demised Premises at the Ground Floor on 15 March 2022 on the ground of their non-payment of the monthly rental. The plaintiffs claim against the defendants the recovery of the items, the damages and the loss of income allegedly suffered by them as a result of the alleged unlawful eviction by the defendants.

[7] The core issue for my determination is whether the defendants have instructed the Said Agent to do so. It is my finding that this allegation was made without any basis and without any evidence. It was not proven by the plaintiffs on a balance of probabilities. Here is my explanation.

Breach Of The Tenancy Agreement By The Plaintiffs

[8] The tenancy of the Demised Premises commenced in December 2021 with advanced re