TOYS BOX MARKETING (M) SDN BHD PENN-MART TOYS (M) SDN BHD

TOYS BOX MARKETING (M) SDN BHD PENN-MART TOYS (M) SDN BHD

First Notice to Quit was waived by landlord conduct (continued acceptance of rent after the Notice deadline and conduct consistent with abandonment); the second Notice was ineffective because it was issued before Plaintiff obtained legal possession and, in any event, its ten‑day vacate period was unreasonable; Plaintiff attorned to the tenancy by accepting deposits and rents and therefore Defendant remained a lawful monthly tenant and not a trespasser; Sessions Court erred in rejecting the no case to answer submission; appeal allowed.

Citation
WA-12BNCVC-140-12/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Toys Box Marketing (M) Sdn. Bhd.; Plaintiff/respondent: Penn-Mart Toys (M) Sdn. Bhd.
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
31 May 2019
Case Number
WA-12BNCVC-140-12/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal at High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Sessions Court decision dated 13.12.2018 overruled.
Legal Topics
Notice to Quit, Waiver, Attornment, Vacant Possession, Trespass, Damages, No Case to Answer
Source Language
Malay/English
Property Law Landlord and Tenant Contract Law Civil Procedure Notice to Quit Waiver Attornment Vacant Possession +3 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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Toys Box Marketing (M) Sdn. Bhd.

Defendant/appellant

Penn-Mart Toys (M) Sdn. Bhd.

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal at High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Notices to Quit were valid and effective
  2. 2 Whether the first Notice to Quit was waived
  3. 3 Whether there was attornment by the new owner

Ratio Decidendi

First Notice to Quit was waived by landlord conduct (continued acceptance of rent after the Notice deadline and conduct consistent with abandonment); the second Notice was ineffective because it was issued before Plaintiff obtained legal possession and, in any event, its ten‑day vacate period was unreasonable; Plaintiff attorned to the tenancy by accepting deposits and rents and therefore Defendant remained a lawful monthly tenant and not a trespasser; Sessions Court erred in rejecting the no case to answer submission; appeal allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Sessions Court decision dated 13.12.2018 overruled.

Orders

  • The Defendant/Appellant's appeal is allowed and the Sessions Court decision dated 13.12.2018 is overruled.