UE E&C SANJIA (M) SDN. BHD. v TOH JIT SENG
Outcome
The appeal and cross-appeal are hereby dismissed. The decision by the learned trial Judge is maintained.
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Counsel (4)
Case Significance
Holds that a landlord who neither gave the contractually required notice to reinstate nor carried out the work cannot recover reinstatement costs, while affirming a properly grounded award for loss of rental on the tenant's cross-appeal.
This High Court decision at Johor Bahru disposes of a landlord's appeal and a tenant's cross-appeal from a Sessions Court judgment in a dispute over the reinstatement of rented commercial premises. The landlord had claimed the cost of repair and reinstatement work to restore rented units to their original state, in the sum of RM326,845, while the Sessions Court had allowed the landlord a partial claim for eight months' loss of rental at a monthly rate, together with a water bill. The landlord appealed against the dismissal of its reinstatement-cost claim, and the tenant cross-appealed against the award of the rental loss.
On the reinstatement claim, the court upheld the Sessions Court's dismissal. The tenancy agreement required the landlord to give the tenant notice to reinstate, after which the tenant would have a short period to carry out and complete the work. The landlord's witness admitted in cross-examination that no such notice to reinstate had been given, having left the matter to his lawyer, and no letter of notice was found in the bundle of documents. The court also noted that partitioning had existed in the premises before the tenancy, having been installed by an earlier tenant and left in place, which further undermined the reinstatement claim. Because no actual reinstatement work had been carried out and no notice had been given, the reinstatement cost was not recoverable.
On the cross-appeal, the court found that the eight months' loss of rental had been rightly allowed under the relevant clause of the tenancy agreement, and the water bill was preserved. Finding no reason to disturb the Sessions Court's findings, the court dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal and affirmed the trial judge's decision. The judgment illustrates that a landlord who has neither given the contractually required notice to reinstate nor carried out the work cannot recover reinstatement costs, while a properly grounded claim for loss of rental will stand.
Why could the landlord not recover the reinstatement cost?
The tenancy agreement required the landlord to give notice to reinstate before the tenant's obligation arose, and the landlord's witness admitted that no such notice was given, with no notice letter in the documents. Because no notice had been given and no actual reinstatement work had been carried out, the reinstatement cost of RM326,845 was not recoverable.
What happened to the tenant's cross-appeal?
The court held that the eight months' loss of rental had been rightly allowed under the relevant clause of the tenancy agreement, and the water bill claim was preserved. Finding no reason to disturb the Sessions Court's findings, it dismissed both the landlord's appeal and the tenant's cross-appeal and affirmed the trial judge's decision.
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.
Read on eJudgmentSource: eJudgment (ja-12bncvc-13-07-2024)