ABDUL MAJID BIN MD HANIFF v Majlis Perbandaran Selayang

Case Significance

Instructive on the distinction between a local authority's administrative jurisdiction over an area and its proprietary right, as building owner, to let premises and evict a tenant for non-payment of rent, in a judicial review of a sealing decision.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam concerns a substantive application for judicial review by a stallholder against a municipal council, the Selayang Municipal Council (Majlis Perbandaran Selayang), over the sealing of the premises he occupied. Having earlier been granted leave, the applicant sought an order of certiorari to quash the council's decision to seal the market-stall premises and a declaration that the council had no jurisdiction over them. The applicant had operated a business at the premises for many years, and when he sought to renew his business licence he was told that the area came under the administration of the city hall of Kuala Lumpur, which had temporarily frozen new licence applications; the council issued warning notices and then sealed the premises for arrears of rental, later extending and then terminating the tenancy. The applicant contended that the decision was an abuse of power and was illegal and irrational because the premises fell within the city hall's purview, and that proper procedure had not been followed because he was not told why the premises were sealed or given a list of items seized. The court dismissed the application. It accepted the council's evidence that, although the premises lay within the administrative area of the city hall, ownership of the building remained with the council, which therefore had a valid right to impose and collect rent from the applicant for the period he carried on business there and to evict a tenant who did not pay. There was accordingly no want of jurisdiction, and the applicant, who by his own admission had occupied the premises and had paid rent only up to a point before defaulting, could not resist the council's exercise of its ownership rights. The court observed that the dispute could have been avoided had the council acted promptly and ensured that tenancy agreements were signed at the outset. The judgment is instructive on the distinction between a local authority's administrative jurisdiction over an area and its proprietary right, as building owner, to let and to evict for non-payment of rent.