Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Termination of tenancy

Legal area

Court

16 Dec 2025

BANDAR UTAMA CITY ASSETS SDN. BHD. 1. ) ROTOL FOOD-CHAIN (M) SDN. BHD. 2. ) Chua Kah Seng 3. ) Caleen Chua Yen Keng

Citation

BA-12A-27-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12A-27-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

There was a serious triable issue whether the Tenant validly exercised the conditional renewal option (dependent on absence of arrears and performance of obligations); damages would not be an adequate remedy for the Tenant because premature eviction could be irreversible; the balance of convenience favoured preserving possession pending trial; therefore the Sessions Court correctly granted an interlocutory injunction and the appeal was dismissed.
28 Sept 2025

TAN JUN SIANG 1. ) KAMALUDIN BIN SAID 2. ) CHE ANI BIN AJI

Citation

KA-24NCvC-556-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-24NCvC-556-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The tenancy agreement was valid because it constituted an initial three-year tenancy followed by a further three-year term permitted under section 10 of the Malay Reservation Enactment; clause 5 did not confer a unilateral right to terminate by one month's notice and there was no breach by the plaintiff, therefore the purported notice of termination was invalid and of no effect; defendants are prohibited from disturbing the plaintiff's possession and costs were awarded.
19 Jun 2025

LOY CHI LAM LOW WEI KEAN

Citation

BC-A54-4-12/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BC-A54-4-12/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The plaintiff's conduct in accepting the defendant's rental payments after issuing the notices to demand and to terminate amounted to a waiver of the notices and an affirmation that the Tenancy Agreement remained valid and subsisting; therefore the termination was ineffective and the plaintiff’s originating summons is dismissed.
4 Jun 2025

AZARTINI BINTI YUSOF 1. ) Lee Jit Leon 2. ) Loo Sunh Hong

Citation

DA-A72-4-05/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

DA-A72-4-05/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court held the plaintiff's claims were dismissed because there was no binding contract between the plaintiff and the defendants and the plaintiff was not privy to the contract that governed the tenancy; accordingly she lacked locus standi to pursue the claims arising from the execution of the related default judgment.
17 Jan 2025

PLAZA PREMIUM LOUNGE MALAYSIA SDN. BHD. MALAYSIA AIRPORTS (SEPANG) SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-22NCvC-290-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-290-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although serious triable issues exist as to whether B2B lounge-like operations at F&B outlets were authorised, the balance of convenience favoured the defendant: granting the injunction would hinder the defendant’s statutory and commercial role in managing limited airport space, risk negative precedent for all F&B tenants, and damages were an adequate and quantifiable remedy; accordingly the interlocutory injunction was refused and the application dismissed with costs.
14 Nov 2024

1. ) LOW WEN LOONG 2. ) EE INN LIAN KAM SWEE KEONG

Citation

BI-A54-5-06/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BI-A54-5-06/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court found plaintiffs had complied with the tenancy terms and validly demanded vacant possession; defendant failed to comply with the renewal notice requirement and failed to surrender vacant possession after notice. Therefore plaintiffs were entitled to claim double rent under s.28(4)(a) and to retain the RM12,000 deposit under clause 4; defendant's breach allegations were unproven. The plaintiffs' application in Annexure 1 was allowed and costs awarded.
15 Dec 2023

TETAP TIARA SDN. BHD. HATCHING EDUCATION GROUP SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-12B-33-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12B-33-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Agreement breached Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 and was voidable such that tenant was entitled to terminate; however tenant, having continued to occupy and derive benefit thereafter, is precluded from recovering the rentals paid (section 66 restitution not available in these circumstances) except refund of the deposit; landlord’s counterclaim is dismissed because tenant was entitled to terminate.
11 Aug 2022

1. ) HJ ABDUL MANNAN ROMEL 2. ) Shayan Golden House (M) Sdn Bhd 1. ) NOH BIN AHMAD 2. ) MOHAMAD BIN CHE GHANI 3. ) ROSLI BIN ABD RAHMAN

Citation

AA-22NCvC-28-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-22NCvC-28-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found on the balance of probabilities that the plaintiffs had been treated and acknowledged as the tenants by the defendants (invoices, notices) but that the plaintiffs materially breached the Tenancy Agreement by underpaying rent; the defendants validly terminated the tenancy. Consequently the plaintiffs' claim was dismissed and the defendants' counterclaim was allowed: defendants awarded vacant possession, arrears of RM46,000, ongoing rent at RM5,000 per month from September 2017 until delivery of vacant possession, interest at 5% p.a. on judgment and costs RM10,000.
15 Jul 2022

LEE YEIN YEIN SS EMPIRE FOOD CONNECTIONS SDN BHD

Citation

BK-A52NCvC-12-01/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BK-A52NCvC-12-01/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Defendant failed to raise a triable issue on affidavit or evidence; breaches occurred before COVID-19 Act commenced so the Act and s.7 do not excuse performance absent specific factual proof; notices and termination complied with the Tenancy Agreement; summary judgment was therefore appropriate and granted for the plaintiff with costs on an indemnity basis.
18 Nov 2021

Sunsets Fortune Sdn Bhd Special Coral Sdn Bhd

Citation

PA-12ANCvC-38-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-12ANCvC-38-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Summary judgment was inappropriate because the defendant raised an arguable and triable issue as to the legal effect of the notice of relocation: the relocation clause (Clause 17.2) could have produced a substitution of premises if the tenant did not reject within 14 days, requiring the landlord to offer a new tenancy; the landlord did not follow the substitution process but issued a termination, creating an inconsistency that must be resolved at trial. Other defenses (prematurity of writ; fixed-term status) were found unarguable, but the relocation issue alone sufficed to overturn summary ju…