GULATIS EXCLUSIVE SDN BHD v INFASJAYA SDN BHD

wa-12bncvc-16-02-2025 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 1 October 2025 • WA-12BNCvC-16-02/2025

Catchwords

Civil Procedure – Appeal – Tenancy dispute – Whether tenancy agreement renewed – Whether double rental claim valid – Whether repair costs proven – Whether counterclaim properly dismissed – Whether COVID-19 Act defence applicable Landlord and Tenant – Renewal of tenancy – Alleged automatic renewal – Disputed documents– Failure to prove delivery – Adverse inference under s.114(g) Evidence Act 1950 Landlord and Tenant – Holding over – Double rental – Section 28(4)(a) Civil Law Act 1956 – Sufficient notice to quit – Tenant failed to vacate – Double rental awarded – Evidence – Documentary evidence – Part A bundle – Whether inclusion amounts to admission of truth – Tiow Weng Theong v Melawangi Sdn Bhd [2018] 6 MLJ 761 followed – Letters from Plaintiff’s solicitors not admissions by Defendant – effect of Melawangi Sdn Bhd v Tiow Weng Theong [2020] 3 MLJ 677 Contract – Repairs and reinstatement – Breach of covenant to yield premises in good and tenantable condition – Statutory Interpretation – COVID-19 Act 2020 – Section 7 – Defence of inability to perform – Judicial notice of MCO insufficient – Burden of proof not discharged Civil Procedure – Counterclaim – Renovation costs and deposit refund – Expenses incurred prior to tenancy – Documents inadmissible (Part C) – No benefit to landlord proven – Counterclaim dismissed

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure

Judges (1)

Avinder Singh Gill a/l Ranjit Singh Delivered

Parties (2)

GULATIS EXCLUSIVE Sdn Bhd Appellant INFASJAYA Sdn Bhd Respondent

Case Significance

GULATIS EXCLUSIVE SDN BHD v INFASJAYA SDN BHD is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated October 1, 2025 (citation: wa-12bncvc-16-02-2025). The case was decided by Avinder Singh Gill a/l Ranjit Singh.

What was the outcome of GULATIS EXCLUSIVE SDN BHD v INFASJAYA SDN BHD?

GULATIS EXCLUSIVE SDN BHD v INFASJAYA SDN BHD is a High Court decision dated October 1, 2025. The case was heard by Avinder Singh Gill a/l Ranjit Singh. See the full judgment for details.