Trespassers have no lawful rights to occupy land, and proper party identification is essential for legal proceedings; legal ownership and tenancy protect against unauthorized occupation.

Introduction

[1] The plaintiff initiates this action under O 89 Rules of Court 2012 ( ROC 2012) for summary possession of land. This appeal has been filed by a non-party because the purported defendants remained unidentified when the matter was heard on 23 July 2025, after this Court gave ample time for the alleged occupiers of the land to appear, which occurred on the first day of hearing of encl 1 on 10 June 2025.

[2] On 23 July 2025, this Court issued an Order for possession under O 89 ROC 2012 against "PENGHUNI-PENGHUNI YANG MENDUDUKI" the subject land (the defendants), deeming them to be trespassers without lawful rights.

Factual Background

[3] The plaintiff has applied under O 89 ROC 2012 to obtain vacant possession of a portion of land with an area of 2.9123 hectares held under Title Lot 56167, Grant 49781, Mukim Batu, District of Kuala Lumpur, Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur (the said Land) (this Action).

[4] The plaintiff is a private limited company having its business address at No 2716, Jalan Jinjang Indah 10, Jinjang Utara, 52000 Kuala Lumpur, Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur.

[5] The said Land is owned by the Federal Land Commissioner (FLC), a corporate body established under s 3 of the Federal Lands Commissioner Act 1957 ( FLCA 1957).

[6] The plaintiff rents the said Land through a Tenancy Offer Letter dated 15 August 2024 issued by the Federal Department of Director General of Lands and Mines ("JKPTG") for a tenancy period of three (3) years from 1 October 2024 to 30 September 2027 with a monthly rent of RM61,200.00.

[7] The defendants are occupying the said Land unlawfully and without permission from the FLC and/or the plaintiff by constructing houses and structures on the said Land.

[8] The FLC and JKPTG have issued a Notice to Vacate Land dated 14 November 2024, but the defendants have still failed and refused to vacate the said Land.

[9] The defendants have been given ample time to be represented or respond to the plaintiff's application in this action since the earlier date of 10 June 2025, but they have taken no action.

[10] When the defendants purportedly attended the hearing on 22 July 2025, one lawyer claiming to represent the defendants appeared in this Court. However, no documents were filed for the Court to recognise him as representing the defendants, nor any documents filed to prove they are the defendants actually occupying the said land.

[11] As sufficient time had been given for the defendants to respond to the plaintiff's claim, which they failed to do, I believe that the defendants are unidentifiable and that no challenge or defence to rebut the claim has been made. The defendants did not file any affidavits or written submissions for the hearing scheduled on 23 July 2025. Therefore, the claim for vacant possession is granted to the plaintiff based on the following reasons.

Issues To Be Decided

[12] The main issues in this application are: (a) whether the defendants have a lawful right to occupy the said Land; (b) whether the plaintiff is entitled to vacant possession of the said Land; and (c) whether this application should be permitted.

Reference To Cause Papers

[13] The plaintiff filed: (a) Originating Summons dated 8 May 2025 ("Originating Summons"); (b) Supporting Affidavit of the plaintiff affirmed by Yap Boon Chye on 8 May 2025 ("Supporting Affidavit of plaintiff"); (c) Additiona