Sealdeck (Kuala Lumpur) Sdn Bhd v Onn Choon Koi @ Ng Ching Kwai [2008] 4 MLJ 438

The Malayan Law Journal

Sealdeck (Kuala Lumpur) Sdn Bhd v Onn Choon Koi @ Ng Ching Kwai
[2008] 4 MLJ 438
CIVIL SUIT NO S3(S4)–22–430 OF 1997
HIGH COURT (KUALA LUMPUR)
DECIDED-DATE-1: 25 FEBRUARY 2008
MOHD HISHAMUDIN J

Facts of the Case

:
The defendant, the registered owner of a piece of land in Sungai Buloh, Selangor (‘the land’) entered into a tenancy agreement with the plaintiff to let out the land for a term of three years. The tenancy agreement although signed on 23 March 1996, was to take effect from 1 January 1996 and to determine on 31 December 1998. The rent for the land was agreed at RM4,500 per month and the plaintiff agreed to pay a deposit of the two months rent in advance, amounting to RM9,000. According to the terms of the tenancy agreement, the purpose of the tenancy was to allow the plaintiff to construct a single storey building on the land for the purpose of the plaintiff’s business. However, there was an express condition imposed on the land that provided that the land could not be used for business purposes but only for residence. Subsequent to entering into the tenancy agreement, the plaintiff erected a single storey building for the purpose of storing its trade stocks. When the plaintiff was prevented from erecting any building on the land or to continue to use the land as it intended, it terminated the tenancy agreement and proceeded with this suit against the defendant for misrepresentation and breach of the tenancy agreement. The defendant in turn counterclaimed  against the plaintiff for breach of the same tenancy agreement. The plaintiff contended that there was a misrepresentation by the defendant when the latter, as the landlord, had said that there was no condition imposed on the usage of the land to prevent the plaintiff from erecting a building on the land for the plaintiff’s business purposes. The plaintiff further contended that the defendant did not disclose to the plaintiff that the defendant had in fact sold the land to a third party and that the third party by obtaining a restraining order to prevent the plaintiff from erecting any building on the land had prejudiced the plaintiff’s interest in the land. The defendant on his part alleged that it was the plaintiff who had breached the tenancy agreement by erecting a building on the land without first obtaining the permission of the State Authority. The defendant also counterclaimed against the plaintiff for the non-payment of the monthly rentals from 1 March 1996 until 31 December 1998.

Meanings of the underlined words.

tenancy agreement perjanjian penyewaan
to let out the land untuk menyewakan tanah tersebut
to take effect from mula berkuatkuasa dari
pay a deposit of the two months rent in advance membayar terlebih dahulu deposit untuk dua bulan
construct membina
an express condition syarat nyata
imposed on the land dikenakan ke atas tanah
that provided yang memperuntukkan
but only for residence tetapi hanya untuk tempat tinggal
misrepresentation salah nyata
breach of the tenancy agreement kemungkiran perjanjian penyewaan
counterclaimed menuntut balas
restraining order to prevent perintah pencegahan untuk menghalang
had prejudiced the plaintiff’s interest telah menjejaskan/memudaratkan kepentingan plaintif
This entry was posted in Land law and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.