ANANDAN A/L SINNAPPAN UMI KHADIJAH BINTI HARUN

ANANDAN A/L SINNAPPAN UMI KHADIJAH BINTI HARUN

The court found the lease was amended to commence 1.9.2005 (signed 7.9.2005) and therefore expired 31.8.2021; the plaintiff wrongfully terminated the lease effective 30.4.2021 and was in breach. The defendant did not unlawfully remove the permanent building and was entitled under clause 15 to be compensated for construction cost; the defendant also proved loss of profits and alternative rental, so the magistrate erred in dismissing the counterclaim and awarding the plaintiff RM52,000.

Citation
NA-11BNCvC-3-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant / Defendant: Anandan A/L Sinnappan; Respondent / Plaintiff: Umi Khadijah Binti Harun
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
17 January 2024
Case Number
NA-11BNCvC-3-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; plaintiff's claim dismissed; defendant's counterclaim allowed
Legal Topics
Lease Agreement Interpretation, Lease Termination, Breach of Contract, Damages, Counterclaim
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Property (landlord and Tenant) Civil Procedure Remedies Lease Agreement Interpretation Lease Termination Breach of Contract Damages +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anandan A/L Sinnappan

Appellant / Defendant

Umi Khadijah Binti Harun

Respondent / Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lease commenced on 1.5.2005 and ended 30.4.2021 or was amended to commence on 1.9.2005 and end 31.8.2021
  2. 2 Whether the defendant unlawfully demolished or removed parts of the building and is liable for RM52,000
  3. 3 Whether the defendant is entitled to counterclaim damages including construction cost, loss of profits and alternative rental costs

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the lease was amended to commence 1.9.2005 (signed 7.9.2005) and therefore expired 31.8.2021; the plaintiff wrongfully terminated the lease effective 30.4.2021 and was in breach. The defendant did not unlawfully remove the permanent building and was entitled under clause 15 to be compensated for construction cost; the defendant also proved loss of profits and alternative rental, so the magistrate erred in dismissing the counterclaim and awarding the plaintiff RM52,000.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; plaintiff's claim dismissed; defendant's counterclaim allowed

Orders

  • Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs on the scale
  • Defendant's counterclaim allowed and plaintiff ordered to pay defendant RM52000.00 for construction costs