JUDGMENT

Azimah Omar JCA:

A. Introduction

[1] The two Appeals before us were filed against the Learned Judicial Commissioner's ("Learned JC") decision to only partly allow the Plaintiff-proprietor's claim for alleged unpaid rental (and alternatively for trespass) against the Defendant-tenant in the curious midst of the two subject lands so rented being compulsorily acquired by the State Authority.

[2] The two subject lands here involve a clearly mutually demarcated access road cutting across two plots of land owned by the Plaintiff ("Access Road") as well as an 'unidentified' 3 acres' portion of one of the two plots of land owned by the Plaintiff ("Unidentifiable Land") (collectively referred to as "the Rented Lots").

[3] Appeal 313 was the Plaintiff's Appeal against the Learned JC's decision to dismiss the Plaintiff's claim for alleged rent arrears for both Rented Lots (and alternatively against the Learned JC's decision dismissing the Plaintiff's claim for trespass specifically upon the Unidentifiable Land).

[4] Meanwhile, Appeal 373 was the Defendant's Appeal against the Learned JC's decision to allow the Plaintiff's claim against the Defendant for trespassing the Access Road in the interim when the acquisition was first commenced until the time the Access Road was appropriately vested unto the State Authority.

[5] In essence, the Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the portion of its claim that the Learned JC had partly dismissed while the Defendant was dissatisfied with the portion of the Plaintiff's claim that the Learned JC had partly allowed.

[6] In any case, it is only apt for us to first appreciate and lay down the factual matrix that had culminated in the Appeals before us. Since both parties are Appellants and Respondents in each other's Appeals, it is only practical that we refer to the parties in their original capacities as Plaintiff and Defendant in the High Court below so as to avoid unnecessary confusion.

B. Factual Background

[7] Premium Park Development Sdn Bhd ("the Plaintiff / PPDSB") was the subsequent owner of two plots of land held under HSD 18771 Lot PT 567 ("Lot 567") and HSD 18772 Lot PT 568 ("Lot 568") which were adjacent to one another (collectively "the 2 Lots"). Both Lots 567 and 568 were previously owned by Kang Har Holdings Sdn Bhd ("KHHSB").

[8] PPDSB and KHHSB were interrelated companies. On 4 July 2010 (when the 2 Lots were still owned by KHHSB), KHHSB and Rightbase Right Base Trading Sdn Bhd ("the Defendant / the tenant") entered into a Tenancy Agreement in which KHHSB agreed to let and the Defendant agreed to rent 1) the Access Road which ran across both the 2 Lots and 2) the Unidentifiable Land (which was supposed to be situated somewhere unidentifiable within one of the 2 Lots) for a RM10,000.00 monthly rental for 2 years beginning 1 July 2010 and ends 30 June 2012 ("Tenancy Agreement"). Relevant to the Appeals before us, the Tenancy Agreement:

a. DID NOT explicitly or specifically apportion the lump sum RM10,000.00 monthly rent between the corresponding Access Road and the Unidentifiable Land;

b. DID NOT explicitly apportion and demarcate the boundary and location of the Unidentifiable Land atop of one of the Plaintiff's 2 Lots;

c. Only roughly 'understood' the boundary and location of the Access Road running across the 2 Lots in order for the Defendant to be able to access its office building which was situated in Lot 11481 (which was adjacent to Lot 567);

d. was NOT APPENDED with any clear plan to expressly identify and demarcate the boundary and location of both the Access Road and the Unidentifiable Land;

e. stipulated that the Tenancy Agreement immediately ceases upon the commencement of a compulsory acquisition by the Government (clause 6 of the Tenancy Agreement); and

f. stipulated that the Tenancy Agreement also binds any successors in title or permitted assigns of both the Plaintiff and Defendant.

[9] Upon the expiration of the tenancy period, the Tenancy Agreement was verbally extended twice. Up