JUDGMENT

Gan Techiong JC:

Introduction

[1] Can a registered proprietor of land apply under O 89 of the Rules of 2012 to evict occupiers of land who had received payment of compensation pursuant to the Land Acquisition Act 1960? This is the primary issue that arises for determination in this case.

[2] After considering the submissions and authorities, I decided that the applicant, which is the registered proprietor of 26 lots of land, may apply under O 89 to evict those occupiers - for they are indeed persons who are remaining in occupation of the land without the registered proprietor's licence or consent, or that of its predecessor-in-title. After finding that the applicant had satisfied all the conditions to invoke O 89 and that there is no triable issue, this Court allowed the applicant's application with nominal costs to be paid by the respondents. My reasons are as explained below.

Background Facts

[3] The applicant is a private limited company duly incorporated in Malaysia and is the registered proprietor of 26 lots of land held under:

(1) HS (D) 123530, PT 50018;

(2) HS (D) 123531, PT 50019;

(3) HS (D) 123532, PT 50020;

(4) HS (D) 123539, PT 50021;

(5) HS (D) 123545, PT 50022;

(6) HS (D) 123555, PT 50023;

(7) HS (D) 123546, PT 50024;

(8) HS (D) 123540, PT 50025;

(9) HS (D) 123533, PT 50026;

(10) HS (D) 123534, PT 50027;

(11) HS (D) 123535, PT 50028;

(12) HS (D) 123536, PT 50029;

(13) HS (D) 123537, PT 50030;

(14) HS (D) 123538, PT 50031;

(15) HS (D) 123547, PT 50032;

(16) HS (D) 123541, PT 50033;

(17) HS (D) 123556, PT 50034;

(18) HS (D) 123542, PT 50035;

(19) HS (D) 123543, PT 50036;

(20) HS (D) 123544, PT 50037;

(21) HS (D) 123548, PT 50038;

(22) HS (D) 123549, PT 50039;

(23) HS (D) 123550, PT 50040;

(24) HS (D) 123551, PT 50041;

(25) HS (D) 123552, PT 50042; and

(26) HS (D) 123554, PT 50044;

and all of which are within s 41, Bandar Kuala Lumpur, District of Kuala Lumpur, Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur (hereinafter referred to collectively as "the applicant's land").

[4] There are 179 respondents (should have been named as "Defendants") in this action. In the intitulement, the names of 178 respondents are stated. The 179th respondent is stated as: "TIAP-TIAP ORANG LAIN YANG MENDUDUKI HARTANAH-HARTANAH TERSEBUT".

[5] Only 23 out of the 178 respondents have appointed solicitors to oppose the applicant's application before this Court . They are the 6th, 21st, 30th, 33rd, 40th, 42nd, 44th, 45th, 68th, 74th, 77th, 119th, 126th, 128th, 132nd, 136th, 140th, 143rd, 145th, 146th, 154th, 161st, and 166th respondent. These 23 respondents are occupying 17 out of the 26 lots of the applicant's land.

The Applicant's Position

[6] In his supporting affidavit, the applicant's director averred that sometime in year 2016, the applicant was invited by Persatuan Pemilik Hartanah Kampung Sungai Baru ("PPHKSB") to redevelop properties located in Kampung Sungai Baru, Kuala Lumpur, in line with an urban renewal policy announced by the Ministry of Federal Territories, through Perbadanan Perkampungan Kampung Baru ("PPKB").

[7] The redevelopment project ("the Project") is to redevelop the land on which 64 old terrace houses and 264 dilapidated flats stand. Proposals were made for those property owners to enter into a joint venture agreement ("the Joint Venture Agreement") whereby the owners and/or beneficiaries of the Estate of deceased owners, would vacate their respective units and authorise the applicant to redevelop the land. In consideration thereof, they would receive, inter alia, new apartments with essential facilities and infrastructure, as well as monetary compensation.

[8] Apparently, the owners of 27 out of the 64 terrace houses and 192 out of the 264 flats signed the Joint Venture Agreement. The applicant further averred that since the majority support the Project, the government decided to approve the Project. It was decided that the Land Acquisition Act 1960 would be used to acquire those units belonging to owners who declined to enter into the Joint Venture Agr