cb-24ncvc-16-01-2025 — TEH CHAI PENG v FIESTA UNTUNG SDN BHD

Catchwords

The dispute in this case concerned the recovery of vacant possession of two parcels of land together with a factory building situated thereon, held under GM 835 Lot 7628 and GM 815 Lot 7629, Mukim Gali, Ulu Gali, Daerah Raub, Pahang (“the said lands”). The Plaintiff was the registered proprietor of the said lands, while the Defendant was a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading durians and other fruits. The Plaintiff commenced proceedings by way of Originating Summons under O. 89 of the Rules of Court 2012, alleging that the Defendant had entered into and remained in occupation of the said lands without licence or consent. The Plaintiff contended that no tenancy or lease agreement had ever been entered into with the Defendant, that no rent had ever been paid, and that the Defendant was therefore a trespasser ‘pure and simple’. The Plaintiff relied on the land titles, a sale and purchase agreement, a police report denying the authenticity of an alleged lease, and a letter from one of the Defendant’s directors confirming that no tenancy agreement had been approved or entered into. The Defendant, on the other hand, asserted that it occupied the said lands pursuant to a valid lease agreement and argued that the authenticity and enforceability of the lease raised triable issues unsuitable for summary determination under O.89 of the ROC 2012. The issues for this Court’s determination were: a) whether the Plaintiff had established a right to possession of the said lands sufficient to invoke the summary procedure under O. 89; and b) whether the Defendant had raised any bona fide triable issue of fact or law, in particular as to the existence of lawful tenancy or license, so as to oust the operation of O.89. Held, allowing the Plaintiff’s application with cost of RM 5,000.00. 1) The Plaintiff had established his proprietary right to possession and satisfied the substantive requirements of O.89. The Plaintiff’s ownership of the said lands was undisputed, and affidavit evidence showed that the Defendant was in occupation without licence or consent. In the absence of any proven tenancy or lawful basis of occupation, the case fell squarely within the narrow ambit of O.89 which is confined to clear cases of the trespass (see Chiu Wing Wa & Ors v. Ong Beng Cheng and Shaheen Abu Bakar v. Perbadanan Kemajuan Negeri Selangor). 2) The Defendant failed to raise any bona fide triable issue capable of defeating the summary procedure. The alleged lease agreement relied upon by the Defendant was riddled with material deficiencies, including the absence of a date, the absence of commencement or expiry terms, lack of witnesses, disputed signatures and the complete absence of proof of rental payment. These defects taken cumulatively, rendered the Defendant’s assertion as lawful occupation no more than a bare allegation. 3) The Defendant’s own documentary evidence fatally undermined its case. A letter from a director and 50% shareholder of the Defendant expressly confirmed that no tenancy agreement had been entered into with the Plaintiff and that any purported agreement was not approved by the board and might involve elements of forgery. This admission decisively corroborated the Plaintiff’s denial of any lease and extinguished any suggestion that a triable issue existed. 4) This was not a case requiring viva voce evidence or a full trial. The dispute turned on straightforward issues of ownership and unlawful occupation, which were capable of being justly determined on affidavit evidence. To deny summary relief would unjustly deprive the Plaintiff of the use and enjoyment of his property and defeat the very purpose of O.89.

Practice Areas

The dispute in this case concerned the recovery of vacant possession of two parcels of land together with a factory building situated thereon, held under GM 835 Lot 7628 and GM 815 Lot 7629, Mukim Gali, Ulu Gali, Daerah Raub, Pahang (“the said lands”). The Plaintiff was the registered proprietor of the said lands, while the Defendant was a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading durians and other fruits. The Plaintiff commenced proceedings by way of Originating Summons under O. 89 of the Rules of Court 2012, alleging that the Defendant had entered into and remained in occupation of the said lands without licence or consent. The Plaintiff contended that no tenancy or lease agreement had ever been entered into with the Defendant, that no rent had ever been paid, and that the Defendant was therefore a trespasser ‘pure and simple’. The Plaintiff relied on the land titles, a sale and purchase agreement, a police report denying the authenticity of an alleged lease, and a letter from one of the Defendant’s directors confirming that no tenancy agreement had been approved or entered into. The Defendant, on the other hand, asserted that it occupied the said lands pursuant to a valid lease agreement and argued that the authenticity and enforceability of the lease raised triable issues unsuitable for summary determination under O.89 of the ROC 2012. The issues for this Court’s determination were: a) whether the Plaintiff had established a right to possession of the said lands sufficient to invoke the summary procedure under O. 89; and b) whether the Defendant had raised any bona fide triable issue of fact or law, in particular as to the existence of lawful tenancy or license, so as to oust the operation of O.89. Held, allowing the Plaintiff’s application with cost of RM 5,000.00. 1) The Plaintiff had established his proprietary right to possession and satisfied the substantive requirements of O.89. The Plaintiff’s ownership of the said lands was undisputed, and affidavit evidence showed that the Defendant was in occupation without licence or consent. In the absence of any proven tenancy or lawful basis of occupation, the case fell squarely within the narrow ambit of O.89 which is confined to clear cases of the trespass (see Chiu Wing Wa & Ors v. Ong Beng Cheng and Shaheen Abu Bakar v. Perbadanan Kemajuan Negeri Selangor). 2) The Defendant failed to raise any bona fide triable issue capable of defeating the summary procedure. The alleged lease agreement relied upon by the Defendant was riddled with material deficiencies, including the absence of a date, the absence of commencement or expiry terms, lack of witnesses, disputed signatures and the complete absence of proof of rental payment. These defects taken cumulatively, rendered the Defendant’s assertion as lawful occupation no more than a bare allegation. 3) The Defendant’s own documentary evidence fatally undermined its case. A letter from a director and 50% shareholder of the Defendant expressly confirmed that no tenancy agreement had been entered into with the Plaintiff and that any purported agreement was not approved by the board and might involve elements of forgery. This admission decisively corroborated the Plaintiff’s denial of any lease and extinguished any suggestion that a triable issue existed. 4) This was not a case requiring viva voce evidence or a full trial. The dispute turned on straightforward issues of ownership and unlawful occupation, which were capable of being justly determined on affidavit evidence. To deny summary relief would unjustly deprive the Plaintiff of the use and enjoyment of his property and defeat the very purpose of O.89.

Judges (1)

Kuldeep Kumar a/l Jamna Dass Delivered

Counsel (5)

Faris Abrar & Co. Firm Khaw & Co. Firm Khaw Eng Khoon Counsel Defendant Law Eng Jun Counsel Defendant Muhammad Faris Abrar bin Othman Counsel Plaintiff

Parties (2)

FIESTA UNTUNG Sdn Bhd Respondent Teh Chai Peng Applicant

Summary

The registered owner of two parcels of land with a factory in Raub sought recovery of vacant possession under Order 89 from a durian processing company occupying the premises. The High Court allowed the application, finding the defendant's alleged lease agreement was riddled with deficiencies and a letter from the defendant's own director confirmed no tenancy agreement existed.

What was the outcome of TEH CHAI PENG v FIESTA UNTUNG SDN BHD?

<p>The registered owner of two parcels of land with a factory in Raub sought recovery of vacant possession under Order 89 from a durian processing com...

Statutes Cited

Companies Act 2016 (Cap 777)

s 471

Rules of Court 2012

Cases Cited (3)

MY (3)

[1991] 1 MLJ 343 [1994] 1 MLJ 89 [1996] 1 MLJ 285