TAHB AUTO SDN BHD LGM PROPERTIES CORPORATION

TAHB AUTO SDN BHD LGM PROPERTIES CORPORATION

The court concluded the termination notice dated 8.6.2016 was valid and sent to an address known to the defendants; the term 'building' in the recital and parties' conduct meant the lease covered the building and the land on which it stood (not the entire two lots); defendants were aware of the third party occupation before contracting and are estopped from claiming loss of quiet enjoyment; defendants held over from 7.9.2016 and thus the landlord was entitled to claim double rent for the 21-month period; appeal dismissed.

Citation
WA-12BNCvC-65-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: TAHB AUTO SDN BHD; Respondent/plaintiff: LGM PROPERTIES CORPORATION (under Malaysian Rubber Board)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
27 March 2023
Case Number
WA-12BNCvC-65-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Termination of Lease, Holding Over, Double Rent, Quiet Enjoyment, Mitigation, Unjust Enrichment, Service of Notice
Source Language
Malay/English
Landlord and Tenant Law Contract Property Civil Procedure Termination of Lease Holding Over Double Rent Quiet Enjoyment +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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TAHB AUTO SDN BHD

Appellant/defendant

LGM PROPERTIES CORPORATION (under Malaysian Rubber Board)

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the termination of the lease dated 8.6.2016 was valid and whether the termination notice was sent to a wrong address
  2. 2 Whether the subject matter of the lease comprised the two entire lots (Lot 857 & Lot 858) or only the building and the land on which the building stood
  3. 3 Whether the landlord failed to provide quiet enjoyment to the tenant

Ratio Decidendi

The court concluded the termination notice dated 8.6.2016 was valid and sent to an address known to the defendants; the term 'building' in the recital and parties' conduct meant the lease covered the building and the land on which it stood (not the entire two lots); defendants were aware of the third party occupation before contracting and are estopped from claiming loss of quiet enjoyment; defendants held over from 7.9.2016 and thus the landlord was entitled to claim double rent for the 21-month period; appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Sessions Court dated 29.4.2022 affirmed