JUDGMENT

Gan Techiong JC:

Introduction

[1] The main subject matter of this case is the scope of power of a Commissioner of Buildings appointed under s 4(1) of the Strata Management Act 2013. The Plaintiffs have filed this action to seek declarations regarding the power of the Commissioner of Buildings of Kuala Lumpur (the 1st Defendant) and for consequential orders against the 2nd Defendant.

[2] After reading the cause papers and hearing lengthy submissions of learned counsel for all the parties, including submissions by learned counsel for the Interveners, I find that the power of the Commissioner of Buildings is circumscribed by the Strata Management Act 2013. Based on the facts of this case, the five declarations that this Court has issued, pursuant to prayer (8) of the Originating Summons for such further and/or other order or relief which this Court deems fit and fair, are summed up as follows:

(1) A declaration that the 1st Defendant Commissioner of Buildings of Kuala Lumpur is to rely on:

(i) the documents filed by the strata management committee of the 1st Plaintiff Diamond F Management Corporation pursuant to para 7(8) of the Second Schedule of the Strata Management Act 2013, which are certified true copies of the resolutions passed at the general meeting and certified true copies of the minutes of general meeting; or

(ii) an award of the Strata Management Tribunal; or

(iii) a Court Order regarding the management committee members;

to verify the names of those strata management committee members elected at the general meeting of the 1st Plaintiff Diamond F Management Corporation

(2) A declaration that only those documents specified in para 7(8) of the Second Schedule of the Strata Management Act 2013 are mandatory to be filed by a management corporation for the purpose of verifying the names of those strata management committee members elected at a general meeting of a management corporation, and that a Commissioner of Buildings has no power to require additional documents to be filed for the aforesaid purpose.

(3) A declaration that the management committee members of a management corporation do not require any "letter of recognition" from the Commissioner of Buildings to be recognised as the committee members elected at a general meeting.

(4) A declaration that the requirement imposed by the Commissioner of Buildings of Kuala Lumpur, for a Statutory Declaration to be submitted by the management committee members of Perbadanan Pengurusan Diamond F, was ultra vires and void.

(5) A declaration that para 3.1 and 3.2 of a Circular dated 19th October 2016 issued by the 1st Defendant Commissioner of Buildings of Kuala Lumpur and known as "PEKELILING COBKL 2016/01", which makes it mandatory for a "Surat Akuan Bersumpah" (Statutory Declaration) dan "Maklumat Tambahan Anggota Jawatankuasa" (Additional Information about Committee Members) to be filed by strata management committees, was ultra vires and void.

[3] Even though this Court has decided in favour of the Plaintiffs, the declarations issued are not as worded in the Plaintiffs ' prayers. My reasons are explained in detail hereinbelow.

Background Facts

[4] The 1st Plaintiff is the management corporation ("the MC") of a stratified development known as Diamond F. So is the 1st Intervener, albeit named as an intervener because the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Interveners challenge the authority of the 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs to name the MC of Diamond F as a party in this action.

[5] The 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs were elected as committee members of the MC at its 9th Annual General Meeting ("AGM") convened on 25 May 2019.

[6] The 2nd and 3rd Interveners were also elected as committee members of the MC at its 9th AGM on 25 May 2019.

[7] Disputes between the committee members erupted on 6 August 2020 when the 3rd Intervener filed an application at the Strata Tribunal to challenge the validity of the election of the 2nd Plaintiff Rajakumar a/l Rajaratnam as a committee member. The case at the Strata Mana