John Lee Kien How @ Mohd Johan Lee JC:

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

(Assessment)

I. Introduction

[1]This is the assessment for the quantum of damages against the Defendant (“this Assessment”) pursuant to the summary judgment dated 15.04.2021 (‘the Judgment’) consequential to the occupation of the Defendant on the Plaintiff’s land.

A) Facts of the Case

[2]The Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of a piece of land known as H.S.(D) 120442, PT 27048, Mukim Batu, Daerah Kuala Lumpur (“the Land”) effective 23.10.2017, in which the Land had been alienated to the Plaintiff for the purpose of a mixed development, pursuant to a letter issued by the Director General of Lands and Mines dated 26.05.2017.

[3]The Plaintiff pleads that the Defendant has been found occupying the Land before the date of issuance of title deed to the Plaintiff.

[4]The Plaintiff, vide their solicitors then, issued a notice of vacant possession on 03.06.20119 to the Defendant demanding the Defendant to move out from the Land and handover the vacant possession to the Plaintiff.

[5]After hearing the submissions by the parties, the Judgment has been summarily entered against the Defendant where this Court, among others, had:

i)declared that the Defendant has been illegally in occupation of the land effective on 23.10.2017, and

ii)granted an order that the Defendant demolishes all structures that had been erected on the Land and handover the vacant possession on or before 30 April 2021, failing which the plaintiff or its authorised agent(s) may enter the Land and demolish all structures thereon. In such event, the Defendant has to compensate and be responsible for all the costs for such demolition.

[6]The Defendant had appealed to the Court of Appeal against the Judgment. The appeal was later dismissed by the Court of Appeal. In this Assessment, the Plaintiff, pursuant to the Judgment, now claims in respect of the followings:

a)For the Defendant to pay rental on the Land amounts to RM 87,338.28 per month commencing from 23.10.2017, the date of which the Plaintiff being registered as the proprietor of the Land until the date of delivery of vacant possession to the Plaintiff;

b)For the Defendant to pay the interest of 5% per annum for the rental of the Land on the sum of RM 87,338.28 per month to the Plaintiff from the date the Plaintiff being registered as the proprietor of the Land until the date of delivery of vacant possession to the Plaintiff;

c)For the Defendant to pay the cost of the valuation report (‘VR’) dated 04.03.2020 for the sum of RM 28,000.00 to the Plaintiff;

d)For the Defendant to pay the cost (on solicitor-client basis) to the Plaintiff; and

e)any other relief, remedies this Court thinks fit and just.

B) This Assessment

[7]During this Assessment, both of the Plaintiff and Defendant have called only 1 witness each. They were :

PW1 Lim Liam Hong

DW1 Muhammad Hasmirul bin Mohd Noor

C) The Plaintiff’s Case

[8]The Plaintiff submitted that it was undisputed that the Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the Land. The Plaintiff referred to Section 340 of the National Land Code 1965 on the doctrine of indefeasibility of title to support its contention.

[9]The Plaintiff had called upon PW1, who is a registered valuer to conduct a valuation to determine the market rental value of the Land. PW1 has prepared a valuation report for this purpose (“the VR”).

[10]The gist of the VR prepared by PW1 is that the market rental value of the Land is RM 87,338.28 per month.

[11]The Plaintiff further premised that the opinion and evidence of PW1 is admissible as relevant facts by virtue of section 45Evidence Act 1950Order 40A of Rules of Court 2012 (‘the ROC’).

[12]In reply to the Defendant’s submission, the Plaintiff strongly urged that the VR prepared by PW1 is a cogent, credible and remained unrebutted by other expert report/ evidence and thus ought to be accepted and admitted in totality by this Court. The Plaintiff referred to numerous case law to support this contention.

[13]The Defendant, accordin