Back
FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
ROHASASSETS SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
WEATHERFORD (M) SDN BHD & ANOR – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. determining the necessity of proving tenant's contumacious conduct for double rent. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. clarifying the nature of 'holding over' in relation to landlord's consent. (Para 3 , 17) |
| 3. interpreting and applying s 28(4)(a) of the civil law act in tenancy agreements. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. interpretation of 'holding over' and its implications under the statutes. (Para 35 , 90) |
| 5. final determination on the court's position regarding the requirement for proof of tenant's contumacious conduct. (Para 78) |
[1] The leave question for our determination was as follows:
"In relation to a claim for double rent under s 28(4)(a) of the Civil Law Act 1956, whether there is a requirement on the landlord to show wilful and contumacious conduct on the part of the tenant holding over to render the tenant liable to pay the said double rent."
[2] The question may be paraphrased: If the tenant holds over after the expiry of the tenancy, is there a need for the landlord to prove wilful and contumacious conduct on the part of the tenant to entitle the landlord to charge double rent under s 28(4)(a) of the Civil Law Act 1956?
[3] The Court of Appeal had agreed with the High Court that it is
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
