JUDGMENT

Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim J:

[Enclosure 1]

[1] Enclosure 1 is allowed. Order In Terms of prayer (b), (c), (d) and (f) and in respect of prayer (d) there shall be liberty to apply. No order is made in respect of prayer (a) and (e).

[2] Enclosure 8 is allowed and therefore encl 6 is stayed.

[3] Enclosure 3 is struck off because it has become academic.

[4] In this case, the Plaintiff has applied for injunction to prevent the Defendant from evicting the Plaintiff from the tenanted demised premises, Pursuant to a Lease Agreement dated 28 October 1993 (Exhibit AO-1) between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Plaintiff has agreed to take up the tenancy of the demised premises for 15 years with an option for renewal for another 15 years subject to rentals and terms and conditions to be agreed.

[5] The original lease is to expire on 18 August 2010. One year before the due expiry date the Defendant has given notice to the Plaintiff to renew the lease/tenancy as in Exhibit AO-3 pursuant to cl 14.1 of the Lease Agreement. The parties entered into negotiation with the Plaintiff seeking the renewal for the whole of the demised premises which included the sub- tenanted lots. However, the Defendant is only willing to consider the Plaintiff as an anchor tenant. As the negotiation progresses, the Defendant sensed that the parties may not reach an agreement before the expiry date of the Lease Agreement which is on 18 August 2010. The Defendant then took steps to notify its sub-tenants that their sub-tenancy may be terminated due to effluxion of time. This is to minimize possible losses and damages.

[6] The negotiation for the renewal of the lease did break down and the Plaintiff gave the Defendant a notice in Exhibit AO-4 to refer the matter to arbitration in accordance with cl 16.1 of the Lease Agreement.

[7] The Defendant's counsel argued that cl 14.1 of the Lease Agreement is null and void for uncertainties. This he said is because the parties had failed to reach any agreement on the rental and the terms and conditions of the extension or renewal of the lease. The Plaintiff on the other hand argued that the refusal of the Defendant to grant the extension is in breach of the agreement and therefore is a dispute.

[8] Firstly, in my opinion the law that is applicable to this application is Arbitration Act 2005 even though the Lease Agreement was entered into before 2005. Prior to 2005, the Act applicable is Arbitration Act 1952. But the arbitration cl 16.1 of the express provision of the lease which is found in the LAMPIRAN in the Lease Agreement contain an expression that the 1952 Act shall apply subject to any statutory modification or re- enactment thereof for the time being in force. Therefore, my view is in the light of this provision Arbitration Act 2005 is applicable.

[9] Under s 10 of the 2005 Act, the Court must be ready to grant a stay of any proceeding if the parties have submitted the dispute to arbitration. This is to give the arbitration a chance to resolve the dispute. s 10 reads:

" 10. Arbitration agreement and substantive claim before Court.

(1) A Court before which proceedings are brought in respect of a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement shall where a party makes an application before taking any other steps in the proceedings, stay those proceedings, and refer the parties to arbitration unless it finds:-

(a) that the agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed; or

(b) that there is in fact no dispute between the parties with regard to the matters to be referred.

(2) The Court, in granting a stay of proceedings pursuant to subsection (1), may impose any conditions as it deems fit.

(3) Where the proceedings referred to in subsection (1) have been brought, arbitral proceedings may be commenced or continued, and an award may be made, while the issue is pending before the Court."

[10] In this regard, the Defendant argued there is no dispute that can be referred to arbitration. I disagree. In