BANDAR UTAMA CITY ASSETS Sdn Bhd

On the court record

A property owner whose appeals turn on interlocutory injunctions in commercial-tenancy disputes, including whether a landlord may retake possession pending trial of tenancy expiry or valid renewal.

BANDAR UTAMA CITY ASSETS Sdn Bhd, a property owner, appears in the corpus mainly through appeals from the Sessions Court concerning interlocutory injunctions in landlord-and-tenant disputes, and its matters show how possession contests are fought at the interlocutory stage. In one High Court appeal the company challenged a Sessions Court decision granting an interlocutory injunction in favour of a tenant; having considered the appeal record and written submissions, the court dismissed the appeal with costs of RM5,000.00. In a closely related appeal the company again challenged an interlocutory injunction, this one restraining it from taking vacant possession of the SkyDeck @ Avante Hotel premises pending disposal of the action. As landlord the company argued that the tenancy had expired by effluxion of time on 19 December 2024, leaving the tenant without lawful basis to remain, while the tenant contended it had validly exercised an option to renew.

A further High Court matter arose on the other side of the record, where a plaintiff by originating summons sought to set aside a Magistrate's decision in an earlier civil suit, invoking various provisions of the Rules of Court 2012. The company appeared there as a respondent to that setting-aside attempt.

For a reader, the appearances are a practical study in how commercial-tenancy disputes turn on interlocutory relief: whether a tenant can restrain the landlord from retaking possession while the underlying question of expiry or valid renewal is tried, and the appellate court's reluctance to disturb a Sessions Court's discretionary grant absent error. The company is named as it appears on the record; the individual co-parties in the tenancy disputes are referred to by their procedural role only. The recurring pattern — a Sessions Court injunction preserving a tenant's occupation, followed by an unsuccessful High Court appeal — shows how the balance of convenience in a commercial-tenancy dispute typically favours preserving the status quo until the question of expiry or valid renewal can be tried, and how reluctant an appellate court is to disturb that discretionary assessment absent a demonstrated error of principle.