1. KHOO TENG KEAT 2. KHOO KAH CHUAN (KEDUA-DUA SEBAGAI PEMEGANG-PEMEGANG AMANAH KEPADA HARTA PUSAKA KHOO THEAN TEIK, SIMATI) 1. SIA BOON HOCK 2. KESEMUA ORANG YANG TIDAK DIKENALI YANG MENDUDUKI PREMIS NO. 6 JALAN TAMAN THEAN TEIK DUA, 11500

1. KHOO TENG KEAT 2. KHOO KAH CHUAN (KEDUA-DUA SEBAGAI PEMEGANG-PEMEGANG AMANAH KEPADA HARTA PUSAKA KHOO THEAN TEIK, SIMATI) 1. SIA BOON HOCK 2. KESEMUA ORANG YANG TIDAK DIKENALI YANG MENDUDUKI PREMIS NO. 6 JALAN TAMAN THEAN TEIK DUA, 11500

The Court held the 1972 written agreement is a licence (the document repeatedly uses the term 'licence' and clause 17 expressly states it operates as a licence and does not confer legal interest). Oral assurances cannot alter the written terms (Evidence Act ss.91-92). Any unregistered lease would be only a lease in equity and, for a lease of part, limited to at most 30 years under s.221(3) NLC; occupants had occupied >30 years so any equitable lease would have expired and they would be tenants at will/monthly tenants. Therefore plaintiffs are entitled to possession upon termination but must pay reasonable compensation to licensees with equity for the value of the buildings; the Court...

Citation
PA-A52-3-07/2016 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Plaintiff Trustee: Khoo Teng Keat; Plaintiff Trustee: Khoo Kah Chuan; Defendant Occupier: Sia Boon Hock; Defendant Unknown Occupiers: All unknown persons occupying No. 6 Jalan Taman Thean Teik Dua
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
27 February 2020
Case Number
PA-A52-3-07/2016 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Civil Possession Dispute (licence V Lease) / Trial Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiffs. Licence held to be validly terminated; Plaintiffs entitled to possession; Defendants entitled to reasonable compensation as licensees with equity; costs awarded to Plaintiffs.
Legal Topics
Licence Versus Lease, Lease in Equity (unregistered Lease), Registration Under National Land Code, Parol Evidence and Written Contracts, Compensation for Termination of Licence
Source Language
Malay/English
Property Law Land Law Contract Law Evidence Law Licence Versus Lease Lease in Equity (unregistered Lease) Registration Under National Land Code Parol Evidence and Written Contracts +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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khoo Teng Keat

Plaintiff Trustee

Khoo Kah Chuan

Plaintiff Trustee

Sia Boon Hock

Defendant Occupier

All unknown persons occupying No. 6 Jalan Taman Thean Teik Dua

Defendant Unknown Occupiers

Procedural Posture

Civil Possession Dispute (licence V Lease) / Trial Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1972 agreement is a licence or a lease
  2. 2 Whether ground rent constitutes rent for a lease or consideration for a licence
  3. 3 Whether plaintiffs are entitled to repossess and terminate the agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the 1972 written agreement is a licence (the document repeatedly uses the term 'licence' and clause 17 expressly states it operates as a licence and does not confer legal interest). Oral assurances cannot alter the written terms (Evidence Act ss.91-92). Any unregistered lease would be only a lease in equity and, for a lease of part, limited to at most 30 years under s.221(3) NLC; occupants had occupied >30 years so any equitable lease would have expired and they would be tenants at will/monthly tenants. Therefore plaintiffs are entitled to possession upon termination but must pay reasonable compensation to licensees with equity for the value of the buildings; the Court...

Court Disposition

Judgment for Plaintiffs. Licence held to be validly terminated; Plaintiffs entitled to possession; Defendants entitled to reasonable compensation as licensees with equity; costs awarded to Plaintiffs.

Orders

  • Plaintiffs' claim allowed; Licence terminated and Notice to Quit/Notice of Eviction dated 18.11.2015 held valid
  • Defendants ordered to deliver vacant possession of the premises and portion of the land within 3 months from judgment