ROHASASSETS SDN BHD (Dahulunya dikenali sebagai Wisma Perkasa Sdn Bhd) 1. WEATHERFORD (M) SDN BHD 2. WEATHERFORD SOLUTIONS SDN BHD

ROHASASSETS SDN BHD (Dahulunya dikenali sebagai Wisma Perkasa Sdn Bhd) 1. WEATHERFORD (M) SDN BHD 2. WEATHERFORD SOLUTIONS SDN BHD

Section 28(4)(a) of the Civil Law Act does not require the landlord to prove wilful and contumacious conduct to recover double rent; the statute makes double rent chargeable at the landlord's option upon holding over, but recovery is only available where the holding over is without the landlord's consent (express or implied) — holding over with the landlord's tacit or express consent (creating tenancy at will) precludes double rent for that period.

Citation
02(f)-12-02/2019(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Parties
Appellant: Rohasassets Sdn Bhd; 1st Respondent: Weatherford (M) Sdn Bhd; 2nd Respondent: Weatherford Solutions Sdn Bhd
Court
f
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
26 November 2019
Case Number
02(f)-12-02/2019(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment (federal Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Court of Appeal decision affirmed.
Legal Topics
Double Rent, Holding Over, Tenancy at Will, Tenancy at Sufferance, Waiver by Conduct, Consent to Hold Over, Civil Law Act Section 28(4)(a)
Source Language
Malay/English
Property Law Landlord and Tenant Contract Statutory Interpretation Double Rent Holding Over Tenancy at Will Tenancy at Sufferance +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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rohasassets Sdn Bhd

Appellant

Weatherford (M) Sdn Bhd

1st Respondent

Weatherford Solutions Sdn Bhd

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment (federal Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether landlord must prove wilful and contumacious conduct by a tenant holding over to claim double rent under section 28(4)(a) Civil Law Act 1956
  2. 2 Whether holding over with landlord's consent precludes claim for double rent
  3. 3 Scope of court's role when landlord elects to exercise option to charge double rent

Ratio Decidendi

Section 28(4)(a) of the Civil Law Act does not require the landlord to prove wilful and contumacious conduct to recover double rent; the statute makes double rent chargeable at the landlord's option upon holding over, but recovery is only available where the holding over is without the landlord's consent (express or implied) — holding over with the landlord's tacit or express consent (creating tenancy at will) precludes double rent for that period.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Court of Appeal decision affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and Court of Appeal decision affirmed
  • Double rent held chargeable only for period where holding over was without landlord's consent (1.10.2011 to 31.10.2011) as ordered below