1. ) ANG PI KUI 2. ) ANG PI KUI [In the capacity of partner in the partnership known as "Wu Pang Kopitiam" (Registration No: JM0808567-K) 1. ) LEE WEE TECK 2. ) CHEW CHOON TAU

1. ) ANG PI KUI 2. ) ANG PI KUI [In the capacity of partner in the partnership known as "Wu Pang Kopitiam" (Registration No: JM0808567-K) 1. ) LEE WEE TECK 2. ) CHEW CHOON TAU

The Plaintiffs lacked locus to sue because the claim was effectively on behalf of the partnership but was not brought in the name of the firm or by all partners; alternatively, on the merits the tenancy expired on 31‑08‑2020 for failure to give the required written 3‑month notice, the landlord validly declined to extend, any payment of rent post‑expiry created only a monthly periodic tenancy which the landlord validly terminated, and Act 829 did not prevent termination due to its saving provision; accordingly the Originating Summons is dismissed with costs.

Citation
JA-24NCVC-476-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (personal Capacity): ANG PI KUI; Plaintiff (partner Capacity for Wu Pang Kopitiam): ANG PI KUI; Defendant (landlord): LEE WEE TECK; Defendant (landlord): CHEW CHOON TAU
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
25 January 2021
Case Number
JA-24NCVC-476-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons (tenancy / Specific Relief) / Judgment on Preliminary Objection and Merits (dismissed)
Outcome
Originating Summons dismissed; preliminary objection allowed (plaintiffs lacked locus to sue); costs awarded to defendants.
Legal Topics
Tenancy Renewal Option, Locus to Sue for Partnership Claims, Acceptance of Rent and Creation of Periodic Tenancy, Estoppel/novation Under Contracts Act S42, Effect of Covid 19 Act 2020 (act 829) on Termination
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Property/tenancy Law Partnership Law Civil Procedure Statutory Interpretation Tenancy Renewal Option Locus to Sue for Partnership Claims Acceptance of Rent and Creation of Periodic Tenancy +2 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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ANG PI KUI

Plaintiff (personal Capacity)

ANG PI KUI

Plaintiff (partner Capacity for Wu Pang Kopitiam)

LEE WEE TECK

Defendant (landlord)

CHEW CHOON TAU

Defendant (landlord)

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons (tenancy / Specific Relief) / Judgment on Preliminary Objection and Merits (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a single partner (Ang) had locus to sue in his personal capacity or in his capacity as a partner rather than suing in the name of the firm or all partners
  2. 2 Whether the tenant gave the required written 3 months notice to exercise option to extend tenancy
  3. 3 Whether acceptance of rent after expiry created estoppel or novation converting holding over into a new fixed term rather than a monthly periodic tenancy

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiffs lacked locus to sue because the claim was effectively on behalf of the partnership but was not brought in the name of the firm or by all partners; alternatively, on the merits the tenancy expired on 31‑08‑2020 for failure to give the required written 3‑month notice, the landlord validly declined to extend, any payment of rent post‑expiry created only a monthly periodic tenancy which the landlord validly terminated, and Act 829 did not prevent termination due to its saving provision; accordingly the Originating Summons is dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Originating Summons dismissed; preliminary objection allowed (plaintiffs lacked locus to sue); costs awarded to defendants.

Orders

  • Originating Summons (JA‑24NCVC‑476‑09/2020) dismissed
  • Preliminary objection upheld: plaintiffs lacked locus to sue in the stated capacities