CHUA KIEW HUA 1. ) LOW CHIN CHOY 2. ) LOW AH PENG 3. ) LOW TI 4. ) LOW KONG BING 5. ) LOW KONG SENG 6. ) LOW KWONG THIN

CHUA KIEW HUA 1. ) LOW CHIN CHOY 2. ) LOW AH PENG 3. ) LOW TI 4. ) LOW KONG BING 5. ) LOW KONG SENG 6. ) LOW KWONG THIN

Summary judgment was appropriate because plaintiffs satisfied Order 14 prerequisites and defendant failed to raise a triable issue: the lease had expired, there was no renewal or consent, notice to vacate was issued and defendant held over; under section 28(4)(a) Civil Law Act 1956 landlord is entitled to double rent for holding over.

Citation
BA-12ANCvC-15-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Chua Kiew Hua; Respondent/plaintiff: Low Chin Choy; Respondent/plaintiff: Low Ah Peng; Respondent/plaintiff: Low Ti; Respondent/plaintiff: Low Kong Bing; Respondent/plaintiff: Low Kong Seng; Respondent/plaintiff: Low Kwong Thin
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
5 November 2024
Case Number
BA-12ANCvC-15-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Sessions Court Summary Judgment Under Order 14 / High Court Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment Under Order 14, Holding Over, Double Rent Under Section 28(4)(a) Civil Law Act 1956, Vacant Possession, Waiver, Amendment of Pleadings
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Landlord and Tenant Civil Procedure Property Law Summary Judgment Under Order 14 Holding Over Double Rent Under Section 28(4)(a) Civil Law Act 1956 Vacant Possession +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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chua Kiew Hua

Appellant/defendant

Low Chin Choy

Respondent/plaintiff

Low Ah Peng

Respondent/plaintiff

Low Ti

Respondent/plaintiff

Low Kong Bing

Respondent/plaintiff

Low Kong Seng

Respondent/plaintiff

Low Kwong Thin

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Sessions Court Summary Judgment Under Order 14 / High Court Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment under Order 14 was appropriate
  2. 2 Whether the defendant was holding over such that landlord entitled to double rent under section 28(4)(a) Civil Law Act 1956
  3. 3 Whether payment of rent after lease expiry amounted to consent or renewal

Ratio Decidendi

Summary judgment was appropriate because plaintiffs satisfied Order 14 prerequisites and defendant failed to raise a triable issue: the lease had expired, there was no renewal or consent, notice to vacate was issued and defendant held over; under section 28(4)(a) Civil Law Act 1956 landlord is entitled to double rent for holding over.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs RM3000 to Respondents (subject to allocatur)