Back
2025 MarsdenLR 5135
SESSION COURT SHAH ALAM
MINSYAM SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
CHOO LIN (M) SDN BHD – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: BA-B52-3-01/2022]
A tenant must consistently meet rental obligations to maintain tenancy rights; mere acceptance of sporadic payments does not constitute a valid or ongoing tenancy.
Headnote:(A) Tenancy Law - Validity and Enforcement of Tenancy Agreements - Breach of Contract - The Plaintiff failed to establish a valid periodic tenancy after 31 March 2020 due to non-payment of rent and expired tenancy. The Defendant lawfully leased premises to third party without further obligation to Plaintiff. (Paras 61, 72, 74)
(B) Locus Standi - Corporate Authority in Legal Proceedings - The Plaintiff lacked locus standi as there was no unanimous resolution passed to initiate the lawsuit by the Board of Directors. (Paras 61, 41)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff, a manufacturer, alleged breach of tenancy after the Defendant rented premises to a third party post-expiration of their agreement without consent. The Defendant contended the tenancy was expired and no valid extension was made. (Paras 2-10)
Findings of Court:
The Court found no existing periodic tenancy post-expiration due to lack of rental payment and insufficient corporate authority for lawsuit initiation. (Paras 72, 74)
Issues: Whether a periodic tenancy existed after the original tenancy expired and whether the Plaintiff had the legal standing to file suit. (Paras 61, 72)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that following a lapsed tenancy, non-payment signifies termination of tenancy rights; thus, the Defendant's actions were lawful. A proper corporate resolution was necessary for legal representation. (Paras 72, 74)
Result: Plaintiff's claims dismissed; costs awarded to Defendant (RM20,000.00). (Paras 77)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. breach of tenancy and trespass. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. plaintiff argues for continued tenancy. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 3. defendant denies plaintiff's claims. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 4. court analyzed evidence and found failure of tenancy. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63) |
| 5. differentiation of legal precedent. (Para 67 , 68 , 69 , 70) |
| 6. court concluded with dismissal of claims. (Para 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76) |
(After A Full Trial)
A. Introduction
[1] This is a case concerning breach of tenancy agreement and trespass.
B. Salient Facts Of The Case
[2] The Plaintiff, Minsyam Sdn Bhd, is a manufacturing company that produces and markets wellness products, while the Defendant, Choo Lin (M) Sdn Bhd, owns the premises in dispute.
[3] The Plaintiff and the Defendant had entered into a tenancy agreement dated 5 October 2018. The Tenancy Agreement ended on 31 March 2020.
[4] After the expiry of the tenancy agreement, the Plaintiff remained operating at the premises with the knowledge of the Defendant.
[5] Plaintiff continued to occupy the premises and paid few monthly rentals after 31 March 2020 whilst the Defendant had accepted the rental. Defendant did not issue any notice for repossession nor did the Defendant give Plaintiff any advance notice to vacate the premises. Therefore, Plaintiff continued to occupy the premises without moving its assets to another place.
[6] On 20 August 2021, one of the Plaintiff's director SP2 was barred from entering the premises.
[7] On 27 September 2021 SP2 came to know that the Defendant had entered into a new Tenancy Agreement dated 1 September 2021 with Rizd Teja Resources Sdn Bhd (RTR).
[8] SP2 alleged that the Defendant had rented the premises to a third party, RTR, without the Plaintiff's knowledge or consent.
[9] SP2 claimed that this is a breach of tenancy and an act of trespass, leading to financial losses due to loss of access to essential equipment.
[10] Plaintiff filed a writ together with a Statement of Claim dated 3 February 2022 against the Defendant for the Defendant to reinstate the Plaintiff's position as the tenant for the premises and other reasonable and appropriate relief.
C. Competing Arguments Of Parties
Submission By The Plaintiff
[11] Plaintiff submitted that it was the lawful tenant and argued that if a landlord continues to accept rent after a fixed-term tenancy expires, a new tenancy from month to month is created (Tan Khien Toong & Ors v. Hong Bee & Co ; [1987] 1 MLJ 387 ; (Supreme Court) referred).
[12] Plaintiff contended that evidence, including rental payments and witness testimony, supports that the Plaintiff was still a lawful tenant post 31 March 2020.
[13] Plaintiff insisted that tenancy continued after 31 March 2020 as a periodic tenancy continues indefinitely unless terminated by proper notice (Zakaria Hanafi v. Ibrahim Hanafiah & Ors ; ; - Referring to Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v. London Residuary Body [1992] 2 AC 386).
[14] It was said that the Plaintiff's continued occupancy and rental payments indicate an extension of the tenancy.
[15] Relying on Saadian Karim v. Ong Ting Chai ; , Plaintiff submitted that a valid notice to quit must be unambiguous and adhere to the required notice period and since no notice was given to the Plaintiff before leasing the premises to a third party, the Defendant breached the tenancy Agreement.
[16] Plaintiff cited the case of Low Kwye Ying v. Chan Yek Ying ; and averred that the right to quiet enjoyment protects tenants from interruptions in possession.
[17] According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant's actions of leasing the premises to RTR disrupted the Plaintiff's business and violated this covenant.
[18] The Plaintiff claimed financial losses from being unable to access essenti
