Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Notice to quit

Legal area

Court

10 Apr 2026

TOP SPEED PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SDN. BHD. VMALL ENTERPRISE SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-22NCvC-250-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-250-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although a lawful monthly tenancy arose after expiry, the Plaintiff failed to prove that the Written Tenancy’s onerous clauses continued, failed to give a valid effective notice to quit, and by its subsequent conduct (accepting payments and issuing rental invoices) undermined any claim that the Defendant was an unlawful holdover; therefore prerequisites for double rent and lawful forfeiture were not established and the deposits must be returned.
19 Nov 2025

CARBON PAPER & RIBBON CO. SDN BHD WFN AUTO SDN BHD

Citation

BA-A52-83-08/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BA-A52-83-08/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Although the Defendant committed breaches making termination under Clause 10.1.1 contractually available, the Plaintiff's subsequent conduct—accepting post-termination payments, failing to give a clear and reasonable notice to quit and delaying re-entry/mitigation—amounted to tacit approval or created equitable estoppel; as a result the Court exercises its discretion under s.28(4)(a) CLA and dismisses the Plaintiff's claim for double rental while upholding the validity of the termination; security deposit to be applied to proven restoration/utilities and balance retained by Plaintiff subject…
10 Sept 2025

1. ) TAN KEAN HOCK 2. ) TAN HONG POO @ TAN HONG POH 1. ) GAJJAN SINGH A/L BHAN SINGH PANNU 2. ) PENGHUNI-PENGHUNI DAN/ATAU PENDUDUK-PENDUDUK premis No. 27 (Tingkat Bawah & 27A (Tingkat Satu) Jalan Haji Salleh, 51000 Sentul, Kuala Lumpur.

Citation

WA-A52NCvC-991-11/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-A52NCvC-991-11/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The first defendant was found to be the monthly tenant (not merely a company occupant); the Notice to Quit addressed to him was valid because he did not challenge being named and evidence (draft agreement and conduct) showed he occupied and paid rent; he sublet without consent and failed to procure vacation by sub-tenants; consequently plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment for vacant possession and to recover mesne profits/double rent under s.28(4)(a) Civil Law Act 1956; no triable issue existed.
19 Jun 2023

Prem Kumar A/L Selvaedran Bambull Sdn. Bhd.

Citation

BL-12ANCvC-2-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BL-12ANCvC-2-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court affirmed the Sessions Court summary judgment because Respondent established a prima facie case of default and breach, provided documentary evidence and admissions, and the Appellant failed to identify any bona fide triable issue; therefore Respondent was entitled to outstanding rent, utilities, repair costs, forfeiture of deposits under the tenancy clause and double rent under s28(4)(a) Civil Law Act 1956; appeal dismissed with costs RM5,000.
27 Apr 2022

KEPONG DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD NG BEE WAN (NO. KP: 760811-14-5898) SEBAGAI PEGAWAI AWAM BAGI PERSATUAN PENGANUT HOCK SUI TONG KEPONG KUALA LUMPUR

Citation

WA-22NCvC-630-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-630-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendant is not a mere squatter but a licensee coupled with equity because Plaintiff and its predecessor acquiesced to decades of occupation, gave assurances through the deceased director, and the Defendant relied and expended money and labour to its detriment; accordingly Plaintiff is entitled to vacant possession but only after satisfying the Defendant's equitable rights, and the Defendant must vacate by 01.02.2023 subject to its equity being honoured.
30 Sept 2021

CHANTHAR A/L G.M. PERUMAL KONG CHEE WENG

Citation

AA-A72-38-12/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AA-A72-38-12/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The strike‑out application was dismissed because the plaintiff's claim for RM41,900 disclosed a reasonable cause of action and was not plain and obviously unsustainable; factual disputes raised by the defendant (effect of delivered but uncashed cheques, liability and termination issues) required adjudication at a judgment hearing or full trial, not summary disposal under Order 18 r19, and therefore the applicant failed to show the claim should be struck out.
31 May 2019

TOYS BOX MARKETING (M) SDN BHD PENN-MART TOYS (M) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-12BNCVC-140-12/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BNCVC-140-12/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

First Notice to Quit was waived by landlord conduct (continued acceptance of rent after the Notice deadline and conduct consistent with abandonment); the second Notice was ineffective because it was issued before Plaintiff obtained legal possession and, in any event, its ten‑day vacate period was unreasonable; Plaintiff attorned to the tenancy by accepting deposits and rents and therefore Defendant remained a lawful monthly tenant and not a trespasser; Sessions Court erred in rejecting the no case to answer submission; appeal allowed.
1 Jan 1900

LIM CHOON SENG LIM POH KWEE

Citation

02(F)-16-03/2019(J) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

F
Case number

02(F)-16-03/2019(J) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The Federal Court held that a decision of the Court of Appeal cannot reverse separate High Court orders in separate proceedings affecting defendants who did not lodge appeals; a test case does not relieve each affected defendant of the obligation to file a separate notice of appeal where separate judgments have been drawn; the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to bind non-parties in the absence of appeals or applicable exceptions; consequently the Court of Appeal's decision was set aside and the High Court judgment reinstated based on the valid notice to quit and trial findings not being pl…