SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 MarsdenLR 5421

SESSIONS COURT (SEREMBAN)
SURITA BUDIN, CJ
Consistent Harvest Sdn Bhd & Anor – Appellant
Versus
The Store (M) Sdn Bhd – Respondent
CIVIL SUIT NO NA-B52-1-03 OF 2022



Advocates:
(David Lai & Tan) for the plaintiff.
(Gideon Tan Razali Zaini) for the defendant.

The inability to perform contractual obligations due to the pandemic does not absolve a party from responsibility if they have capacity to pay; pandemic-related protections apply strictly to inability situations and maintaining tenant responsibilities.

Headnote:(A) Contract Law - Tenancy Agreement - Covid-19 Act 2020 - The Plaintiffs' claim against the Defendant for outstanding rentals was dismissed while the Defendant's counterclaim for the return of deposits was allowed, reinforcing the principle that inability to perform obligations due to pandemic measures holds legal weight. (Paras 48-56)

(B) Defaults and Obligations - It was determined that the Defendant's failure to pay rent constituted a refusal rather than an inability, particularly as the Defendant was able to service other rental obligations, and the pandemic-related protections do not absolve earlier debts. (Paras 57-66)

(C) Restoration Costs - Plaintiffs' claims for restoration costs were dismissed as they fell under the landlord’s obligations, not the tenant's. (Paras 71-74)

Facts of the case:
The case involved a dispute over tenancy agreements pertaining to a shopping complex, with claims arising from rental defaults during the Covid-19 pandemic and subsequent termination of the agreement by the landlord. (Paras 2-22)

Findings of Court:
The court found Plaintiffs' claims against the Defendant unsubstantiated based on the claims' interpretation under the Covid-19 Act, allowing the Defendant's request for the return of a total sum of RM253,736.90. (Paras 85)

Issues: The court addressed if the Defendants' rental defaults were due to inability caused by the pandemic, the validity of the termination notice under the Covid-19 Act, and the proper liability for restoration costs. (Paras 43-44)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Defendant’s obligations under the tenancy were not suspended despite the pandemic provisions, establishing a refusal to pay rather than inability to pay, and reaffirmed that restoration obligations were on the landlord. (Paras 46-48 and 71-74)

Result: Plaintiffs' claims dismissed with costs; Defendant's counterclaim allowed. (Para 85)

Table of Content
1. details of tenancy agreement and rental terms (Para 1 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
2. default and negotiation of rental reductions (Para 12)

[1]On 27.12.2024, this Court has dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claim and allowed partly Defendant’s counterclaim. Aggrieved by this decision, both parties are now appealing to the High Court. Below are my grounds of the said decision.

B. BACKGROUND FACTSThe Demised Premises

[2]Both the Plaintiffs are wholly owned subsidiaries of the Pegasus Height Berhad, a public company listed on the Main Market of Bursa Securities Malaysia. The 1st Plaintiff is the registered owner and proprietor of:

a)a piece of land held under title no. PN 20891 Lot 19980 and PN 20890 Lot 19981, Mukim Ampangan, Seremban District, Negeri Sembilan (Land); and

b)a three and a half storey shopping complex building known as Seremban Centerpoint Mall erected on the said Land and located at 33, Jalan Dato Siamang Gagap, 70100, Seremban (Seremban Centerpoint Mall).

[3]The 1st Plaintiff and 2nd Plaintiff had entered into a tenancy agreement dated 1.3.2015 (MasterTenancy Agreement) that the 1st Plaintiff as the landlord of Land agreed to let the whole of Seremban Centerpoint Mall to the 2nd Plaintiff on the terms and conditions stipulated in the Master Tenancy Agreement.

[4]According to Clause 5.6 of Master Tenancy Agreement, the 2nd Plaintiff is allowed to sublet any part of it to individual or corporate sub-tenants for any legal commercial purpose.

The Tenancy Agreement

[5]The 2nd Plaintiff and the Defendant have entered into a tenancy agreement dated 24.10.2016 (Tenancy Agreement) that the 2nd Plaintiff as a tenant to the 1st Plaintiff, agreed to sublet Lot G-01 and Lot 1-01 in Seremban Centerpoint Mall (Demised Premises) to the Defendant to operate a supermarket under its brand name “The Store”.

[6]The salient terms of the Tenancy Agreement are, inter alia, as follows:

a)the tenancy is for a term of 3 years, commencing from 1.2.2019 and expiring on 31.1.2022 (Part 6 of Schedule 1 read together with Part 7 of Schedule 1 of the Tenancy Agreement and the Defendant’s letter to the 1st Plaintiff dated 4.6.2019;

b)the Defendant shall pay the 2nd Plaintiff monthly rental which is equivalent to base rent and minimum rent (Part 11 of the Schedule 1 read together with Part 12 and 13 of Schedule 1 of the Tenancy Agreement), as follows:

i)RM64,67.30 per month or RM0.90 per square foot for first year of tenancy;

ii)RM71,857.00 per month or RM1.00 per square foot for the 2nd year of tenancy; and

iii)RM79.042.70 per month or RM1.10 per square foot for the 3rd year of tenancy.

c)the monthly rental is for lettable floor area of approximately 71,857 square feet and the lettable floor area shall be subject to re-measurement after execution of the Tenancy Agreement (Clause 5 read together with Part 5 of the Schedule 1 of the Tenancy Agreement);

i)the Defendant shall pay monthly rental to the 2nd Plaintiff by seventh (7th) day of every month (Clause 10.1 of the Tenancy Agreement);

ii)the Defendant shall pay the 2nd Plaintiff all charges in respect of, inter alia, consumption of water, electricity, gas, telecommunication services and/or sewerage services within the Premises (Utilities) (Clause 10.7 of the Tenancy Agreement); and

iii)the Defendant shall pay the 2nd Plaintiff late payment interest at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum calculated on daily basis for overdue monthly rental from the date on which such money falls due for payment to the date such money is received by the 2nd Plaintiff (Clause 6.3 of the Tenancy Agreement).

[7]The 2nd Plaintiff had re-measured and revised the lettable floor area of the Demised Premises to 58,693 square feet consists of the following:

a)lettable floor area of Lot G-01 is 29,540 square feet; and

b)lettable floor area of Lot 1-01 is 29,153 square feet.

[8]Based on the remeasured lettable area and the Tenancy Agreement (Part 11 of the Schedule 1 of the Tenancy Agreement read together with Par

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top