PONNUSAMY A/L SUBRAMANIAM 1. ) AMAZE FOODS RESTAURANT 2. ) ONE TWO EAT RESTAURANT

PONNUSAMY A/L SUBRAMANIAM 1. ) AMAZE FOODS RESTAURANT 2. ) ONE TWO EAT RESTAURANT

The 2nd Plaintiff failed to prove the existence of a tenancy; section 28(4)(a) applies only where a tenancy existed and the tenant refused or failed to give possession after demand; absent proof of tenancy and refusal, double rent cannot be awarded; accordingly the cross appeal for double rent is dismissed while the primary order for vacant possession is affirmed.

Citation
BA-12A-25-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant / Defendant (in Court Below): Ponnusamy A/L Subramaniam; Respondent / 1st Plaintiff (in Court Below): Amaze Foods Restaurant; Respondent / 2nd Plaintiff (in Court Below): One Two Eat Restaurant
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
4 January 2022
Case Number
BA-12A-25-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Sessions Court / Judgment of the High Court on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; principal order for vacant possession affirmed; 2nd Plaintiff's cross appeal for double rental dismissed; restoration cost set aside; parties to bear their own costs.
Legal Topics
Double Rent, Vacant Possession, Tenancy Agreement, Oral Agreement, Statutory Interpretation
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Law Contract Property Landlord and Tenant Civil Procedure Double Rent Vacant Possession Tenancy Agreement +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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ponnusamy A/L Subramaniam

Appellant / Defendant (in Court Below)

Amaze Foods Restaurant

Respondent / 1st Plaintiff (in Court Below)

One Two Eat Restaurant

Respondent / 2nd Plaintiff (in Court Below)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Sessions Court / Judgment of the High Court on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an enforceable tenancy agreement existed between the 2nd Plaintiff and the Defendant
  2. 2 Whether s.28(4)(a) Civil Law Act 1956 entitles the 2nd Plaintiff to double rent where holding over is alleged
  3. 3 Whether the agreement was a tenancy or merely an operational/management arrangement

Ratio Decidendi

The 2nd Plaintiff failed to prove the existence of a tenancy; section 28(4)(a) applies only where a tenancy existed and the tenant refused or failed to give possession after demand; absent proof of tenancy and refusal, double rent cannot be awarded; accordingly the cross appeal for double rent is dismissed while the primary order for vacant possession is affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; principal order for vacant possession affirmed; 2nd Plaintiff's cross appeal for double rental dismissed; restoration cost set aside; parties to bear their own costs.

Orders

  • Vacant possession of the premises affirmed in favour of the Plaintiffs
  • 2nd Plaintiff's cross appeal for double rental dismissed