TAN JUN SIANG v 1. ) KAMALUDIN BIN SAID 2. ) CHE ANI BIN AJI

Case Significance

Instructive on how a lease of Malay reservation land may be validly structured within the restrictions of the Malay Reservation Enactment of Kedah 1930 (Revised 2019), as successive terms not exceeding three years.

This High Court decision at Alor Setar, Kedah, concerns the validity of a tenancy agreement over land within a Malay reservation and whether it may be terminated on short notice. The plaintiff, a tenant, sought by originating summons a declaration that a tenancy agreement dated 1 December 2022 in respect of a shoplot at Pantai Cenang, Langkawi, for a total period from December 2022 to November 2028, was a legally valid agreement, together with an injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing his enjoyment of possession until the tenancy expired, and in the alternative damages. The first defendant was the beneficial owner of the premises and the second defendant was described as his partner and as the owner of the building. The agreement fixed a term expressed as six years, with the monthly rent rising after the first three years, and the central issue was whether it contravened the Malay Reservation Enactment of Kedah 1930 (Revised 2019), which restricts the sale and lease of Malay reservation land, and whether the defendants were entitled to terminate the agreement on one month's notice in the absence of any breach by the plaintiff. The court, per Mohd Aimi Zaini bin Mohd Azhar JC, allowed the plaintiff's application. It held that the tenancy agreement did not offend the Enactment: consistent with the permitted structure, the arrangement operated as a lease for a term not exceeding three years which, on expiry, could be renewed for a further term of three years, and it was unnecessary to consider the defendants' reliance on section 22 of the Contracts Act 1950 concerning a mistake of law, since the agreement did not contravene the Enactment. The court accordingly granted the declaration that the tenancy agreement was legally valid and the injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the plaintiff's vacant possession until the agreement's expiry, with costs of RM2,000. The judgment is instructive on how a lease of Malay reservation land may be validly structured within the Enactment's restrictions.