SUWASENI A/P SUPPRAMANI CHAN SENG CHYE

SUWASENI A/P SUPPRAMANI CHAN SENG CHYE

Plaintiff satisfied Order 14 preliminary requirements and produced contemporaneous evidence (solicitor's letter and receipts) and proof of co-owners' consent; defendant failed to raise any triable issue or provide credible inconsistent contemporaneous documentary evidence; tenant in possession is estopped from denying plaintiff's title; notice to quit was valid and authorises landlord to elect double rent under s28(4)(a); accordingly summary judgment for unpaid rent, double rent and vacant possession was appropriate.

Citation
AC-A52-3-10/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Plaintiff: Suwaseni A/P Suppramani; Defendant: Chan Seng Chye
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
1 January 1900
Case Number
AC-A52-3-10/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Civil Landlord and Tenant / Summary Judgment Under Order 14; Defendant's Order 18 (r.19(1)(a)) Application Heard and Dismissed
Outcome
Plaintiff's Order 14 summary judgment granted; Defendant's Order 18 r.19(1)(a) application dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment (order 14), Double Rent (s28 Civil Law Act), Estoppel by Possession (s116 Evidence Act), Triable Issue Test, Termination of Tenancy
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Landlord and Tenant Law Contract Law Evidence Law Summary Judgment (order 14) Double Rent (s28 Civil Law Act) Estoppel by Possession (s116 Evidence Act) Triable Issue Test +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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Suwaseni A/P Suppramani

Plaintiff

Chan Seng Chye

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Landlord and Tenant / Summary Judgment Under Order 14; Defendant's Order 18 (r.19(1)(a)) Application Heard and Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff had authority/consent of co-owners to sue
  2. 2 Whether a subsisting tenancy/agreement existed and the amount of rent payable
  3. 3 Whether payments made to a different co-owner (Lee Guan Hin) defeat plaintiff's claim

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff satisfied Order 14 preliminary requirements and produced contemporaneous evidence (solicitor's letter and receipts) and proof of co-owners' consent; defendant failed to raise any triable issue or provide credible inconsistent contemporaneous documentary evidence; tenant in possession is estopped from denying plaintiff's title; notice to quit was valid and authorises landlord to elect double rent under s28(4)(a); accordingly summary judgment for unpaid rent, double rent and vacant possession was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's Order 14 summary judgment granted; Defendant's Order 18 r.19(1)(a) application dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment for Plaintiff for unpaid rent RM31,500.00 (Feb–Aug 2020)
  • Double rent of RM9,000.00 per month from September 2020 until delivery of vacant possession