SWIFT LOGISTICS YARD SDN BHD v NORTH WEST DEPOH SDN BHD

Case Significance

Holds a tenant liable as holding over on an expired tenancy, rejecting a claimed tenancy coupled with equity for want of proof of expenditure made on the landlord's inducement, and applying section 92 of the Evidence Act 1950 against alleged oral representations of indefinite occupation.

This High Court (Shah Alam) decision determines a landlord's claim for vacant possession and rental against a tenant said to be holding over on an expired tenancy, together with the tenant's counterclaim. The plaintiff, formerly known by another name, had been a 30-year registered lessee of 29 acres of land in the Klang district. Before the lease expired on 20 November 2022, the plaintiff completed its purchase of the land from the previous landowner and became the registered proprietor on 22 August 2023. The defendant carried on business on the land as a container warehouse service provider and had been a tenant occupying various portions since 14 January 2015. The plaintiff contended that the defendant was holding over on an expired tenancy and unlawfully occupying parts of the land, claiming vacant possession, outstanding rental and double rental under section 28(4) of the Civil Law Act 1956. The defendant claimed a tenancy coupled with equity and counterclaimed, with an interlocutory injunction in place.

The issues engaged included whether the defendant had an indefinite extension of the tenancy agreement, whether there was an oral or implied contract, and the operation of the parol-evidence rule under section 92 of the Evidence Act 1950. The defendant's case rested on alleged representations that it could remain on the land indefinitely and on alleged expenditure incurred in reliance on those representations.

The court found that there was no proof of the alleged expenditure, much less expenditure made on the inducement or encouragement of the plaintiff, and held that the failure to prove that element was fatal to the claim of a tenancy coupled with equity, the alternative counterclaim in unjust enrichment failing for the same reason. It observed that the defendant had conducted itself at significant risk in insisting on remaining in occupation, having had ample time to assess the merits of its case and to mitigate its exposure. Having heard the evidence and considered the submissions and the applicable law, the court found that the defendant had failed to prove any oral collateral agreement or tenancy coupled with equity, and was liable as a tenant holding over on an expired tenancy. The judgment illustrates the requirements of a tenancy coupled with equity and the operation of section 92 of the Evidence Act 1950.