1. ) HORIZON GLOBAL SDN. BHD. 2. ) SHANKARA PILLAI A/L RAMANATHAN 3. ) SANJEEV KUMAR RAMASAMY ATRIA SHOPPING GALLERY SDN. BHD.

1. ) HORIZON GLOBAL SDN. BHD. 2. ) SHANKARA PILLAI A/L RAMANATHAN 3. ) SANJEEV KUMAR RAMASAMY ATRIA SHOPPING GALLERY SDN. BHD.

The High Court found no admissible evidence that the landlord consented to the tenant holding over; the representation alleged by appellants was unproven and amounted to a bare allegation. The Tenancy Agreement and contemporaneous documents supported the respondent's computation of outstanding sums. Under s28(4)(a) Civil Law Act the landlord validly exercised the option to charge double rent where possession was not given up without consent. Summary judgment was therefore properly entered and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Citation
BA-12A-59-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
First Appellant/defendant: Horizon Global Sdn Bhd; Second Appellant/defendant: Shankara Pillai A/L Ramanathan; Third Appellant/defendant: Sanjeev Kumar Ramasamy; Respondent/plaintiff: Atria Shopping Gallery Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
9 August 2024
Case Number
BA-12A-59-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Sessions Court Summary Judgment / Judgment on Appeal (high Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Double Rent (holding Over), Vacant Possession, Guarantee and Guarantor Liability, Calculation of Rent and Service Charges
Source Language
Malay/English
Landlord and Tenant Contract Law Civil Procedure Property Law Summary Judgment Double Rent (holding Over) Vacant Possession Guarantee and Guarantor Liability +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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Horizon Global Sdn Bhd

First Appellant/defendant

Shankara Pillai A/L Ramanathan

Second Appellant/defendant

Sanjeev Kumar Ramasamy

Third Appellant/defendant

Atria Shopping Gallery Sdn Bhd

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Sessions Court Summary Judgment / Judgment on Appeal (high Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment was properly entered by the Sessions Court
  2. 2 Whether there existed triable issues as to consent to holding over / double rent and date of vacant possession
  3. 3 Whether the quantum claimed was properly calculated under the Tenancy Agreement and guarantees

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found no admissible evidence that the landlord consented to the tenant holding over; the representation alleged by appellants was unproven and amounted to a bare allegation. The Tenancy Agreement and contemporaneous documents supported the respondent's computation of outstanding sums. Under s28(4)(a) Civil Law Act the landlord validly exercised the option to charge double rent where possession was not given up without consent. Summary judgment was therefore properly entered and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Summary judgment of the Sessions Court affirmed
  • Appellants to pay costs of RM5,000 to the Respondent, subject to allocatur