JUDGMENT

Roz Mawar Rozain J:

[1] There was an ad-interim injunction in place but this court had directed an inter-parte s hearing before determining the plaintiff's application under O 29 Rules of 2012 (RoC). On 25 August 2025, having heard arguments from both parties, this court allowed the plaintiff's application under O 29 Rules of 2012 (RoC) to:

(a) An injunction restraining the defendant whether by itself, its servants, agents or otherwise from issuing any further notices, communications or threats of eviction to the plaintiff and/or to any of the plaintiff's sub-tenants

(b) An injunction restraining the defendant from taking any steps to terminate the Tenancy Agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant dated 4 August 2020 including but not limited to the initiation or continuation of any legal proceedings, writ of possession, forfeiture proceedings or any other enforcement actions concerning all the parcel of land held under PN95095 Lot 1511, seksyen 7, Bandar Shah Alam (previously known as HS(D) 199290 PT1150, seksyen 7, Daerah Petaling, Bandar Shah Alam) bearing postal address PT 1511 Persiaran Kayangan, seksyen 7, 40000 Shah Alam Selangor

(c)An injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's and subtenants' peaceful, quiet, and uninterrupted enjoyment, use, and occupation of the said parcel of land

(d)An injunction compelling the defendant to comply with its obligations under the Tenancy Agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant dated 4 August 2020, including the continuation and renewal of the tenancy for the 3rd term

(e)An endorsement pursuant to O 45 r 7 RoC incorporated in this order

(f) Costs in the cause for this application.

[2] Due to the urgency of having to determine this dispute, this court fixed trial dates over four days from 8 June 2026 to 11 June 2026 which is just under nine months away from the date of the interim injunction order. Directions for the defence and Reply to the defence were given and the next date was given to manage this case to trial.

[3] The defendant has filed an appeal against this court's order for the injunction.

The Parties

[4] The plaintiff, with a business of leasing commercial spaces to businesses that are primarily engaged in the sale of furniture under home related appliances/white goods, entered into a tenancy agreement with the defendant (1st Tenancy Agreement).

[5] The defendant owns and/or is the registered proprietor of the said parcel of land. The 1st Tenancy Agreement, executed by both parties on 6 March 2009, was with mutual intention for an uninterrupted tenancy period of 30 years, subject to pre-agreed rental increments for the additional tenancy terms. The 30-year term was separated into two portions: the first 20 years was a continuous tenancy of a term of three years each automatically renewed, and the subsequent 10 years was by way of an option given to the plaintiff.

[6] Pursuant thereto, the plaintiff constructed a double-storey exhibition hall on the said parcel of land to operate its business of sub-letting exhibition spaces. The defendant was well aware and/or ought to be aware of such use of the said parcel of land by the plaintiff. There is a letter of consent signed by the defendant on 1 September 2009.

[7] On 4 June 2020 the defendant sought to terminate the 1st Tenancy Agreement due to the late rental payment which arose during the COVID-19 Movement Control Order.

[8] The plaintiff claims it was therefore under duress to enter the Tenancy Agreement of 4 August 2020 (hereinafter referred to as the 2nd Tenancy Agreement).

[9] This 2nd Tenancy Agreement incorporated certain amendments, namely the significant reduction of rental term period from 30 years to 11 years. Otherwise, it largely mirrored the 1st Tenancy Agreement whereby the initial two-year term with automatic renewals for three additional terms of three years each, and the agreed rental increments.

[10] Before the expiration of the second term of the 2nd Tenancy Agreem