1. ) THURAISINGAM A/L PITCHAY MARIE 2. ) PUSPOM A/P PITCHAY MARIE v CHEAH EWE HUAT

Case Significance

Illustrates the strength of a registered proprietor's title in a claim for vacant possession — former tenants who remain after their tenancy has expired and without the registered owner's consent are trespassers — and that an appeal from the Magistrate under Order 55 proceeds by way of rehearing.

This High Court decision at Georgetown concerns an appeal against a Magistrate's Court decision ordering the appellants to deliver vacant possession of land to the respondent. The respondent had been the plaintiff below and the appellants the defendants; one appellant sued both for himself and as representing a related estate. The land, together with two houses in Tanjong Tokong, Penang, had passed through a chain of ownership: it was transferred to a company, Bukit Merdeka Sdn Bhd, which in 2010 granted the first appellant a two-year tenancy of one of the houses at a monthly rent; after the tenancy expired the company sought vacant possession, obtained a default judgment against the first appellant in 2013, and later transferred the land to the respondent, who became the registered owner in 2016. It was undisputed that the respondent was the registered proprietor, and he claimed vacant possession and damages for the appellants' continued occupation as trespassers.

The Magistrate allowed the claim for vacant possession, finding that the appellants had no tenancy or licence from the respondent and had never obtained his consent to occupy the land after he became registered owner, so that they were trespassers. The appellants also filed an application to stay pending the appeal.

Treating the appeal as a rehearing under Order 55 of the Rules of Court 2012, the High Court assessed and weighed all the evidence and the law afresh. It was satisfied that the respondent, as registered proprietor, was entitled to vacant possession and that the appellants, whose tenancy had long expired and who had no permission from the respondent, were trespassers. Finding no merit warranting appellate intervention, the court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Magistrate's decision, the stay application thereby becoming academic. The judgment illustrates the strength of a registered proprietor's title in a claim for vacant possession against former tenants remaining in occupation.