- 原告(租客) 与被告(业主) 于1996年签署了一份为期两年的租约，每月租金为RM1500。根据租约的条款，租客/业主可以选择在两年后将期限延长多三年。然而之后租客没有延长有关期限，但仍继续住在有关住所，每月租金仍是RM1500。
- 法庭判决被告已经不再是该住处的租户。因为当他在31.12.2000离开该住处，也没有继续支付租金时，该租约已经被自动终止。而且他还申请中断该住处的水电供应， 这进一步表明他已不打算继续住在该处。
- On 11.10.1994, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a tenancy agreement whereby the Plaintiff agreed to rent a premises known as Lot 3846, Selangor (‘the said premises’) from the Defendant for a period of two years with effective from 01.09.1994 at a rental of RM1,500 per month.
- Under the terms of the Tenancy Agreement, the Plaintiff/Tenant was given an option to renew the tenancy for a further period of three years after the expiry of the two year period (31.08.1996).
- However, the Plaintiff failed to exercise the option to renew. Notwithstanding that, the Plaintiff was allowed to continue to stay in the said premises. Such being the circumstances, it was assumed that the Plaintiff was a tenant on a month to month basis at a monthly rental of RM1,500.
- This situation continued for a period of about four years when the Plaintiff decided to surrender and give up possession of the said premises on or about 31.10.2000.
- From that period onwards, the Plaintiff did not occupy the said premises and also did not pay any monthly rental to the Defendant.
- In addition to that, the Plaintiff had also applied to disconnect the electricity and water supply to the premises from the relevant authorities.
- Some two years after having vacated the premises, the Plaintiff applied to the Court for the an originating summons for a declaratory that the Plaintiff was still a tenant of the Defendant in respect of the said premises and, as such, the Plaintiff claimed that Plaintiff must be allowed to enter and occupy the said premises.
- The only issue that is required to be determined in this case is whether, on the facts and in circumstances of this case, the Plaintiff could still be regarded as the tenant of the Defendant in respect of the said premises. In my view the answer to that is an emphatic ‘no’.
- Based on the facts of this case the status of the Plaintiff for the period between September 1996 to October 2000 was as a tenant at will, that is a tenant on a month to month basis.
- Such being its status, when the Plaintiff left the premises on or about 31.120.2000 and failed to pay any monthly rental, the tenancy was automatically terminated. Technically speaking, even if the Plaintiff was still continuing to occupy the premises, its failure to pay the monthly rental would be a valid ground for the Defendant to terminate the Agreement.
- In this case not only did the Plaintiff fail to pay the monthly rental but it had also vacated the said premises. Therefore, the only legal conclusion that could be derived from such circumstances was that the Plaintiff had clearly intended to terminate the tenancy. As such the Defendant was legally correct to conclude that the Plaintiff had voluntarily terminated the tenancy.
- Apart from that, the Plaintiff had also went to have the water and electricity supply to the said premises disconnected. This action further indicated that the Plaintiff was no longer intending to stay in the said premises.
- Having regard to the circumstances as stated above, I have come to the conclusion that there are no merits whatsoever in the Plaintiff’s claim.
Plaintiff/Tenant’s claim for payment of rental from Defendant/Landlord
- There was also a third prayer claimed by the Plaintiff where it demanded that the Defendant pay the Plaintiff monthly rental of RM1,500 for the period the Plaintiff had left the said premises, and in its absence, they were occupied by the Defendant.
- This claim is totally without any merit. In my view, for anybody to claim for rental of any premises, he must first of all show that he has lawful right to possession and occupation of the said premises.
- In this case, it is clearly shown that the Plaintiff no longer had the right to possess and occupy the said premises. On the other hand, the Defendant, as the owner of the said premises, would automatically have the right to possess and occupy the said premises as soon as the tenancy with Plaintiff was terminated. The question for the Defendant to pay anything to the Plaintiff would not arise. This claim must also fail.
- Having regard to the whole circumstances of this case, I have arrived at the decision that the Plaintiff’s claim be dismissed with costs.
Source: YS Metal (M) Sdn Bhd v. Liew Kwai Choong  7 MLJ 471. High Court KL. Azmel Maamor J
*We have more than 15 years of experience in the legal profession. We handle matters such as commercial disputes, civil litigation, debt recovery, probate & letter of administration, will, divorce, children custody, maintenance/alimony, adoption, distribution of matrimonial assets, drafting commercial agreement, drafting sale and purchase agreement, process loan documentations, legal consultation, legal advisory, miscellaneous legal works.
*Wilson Kuek是“法律与你同行 Law & Justice”面子书群组的创办人。“法律与你同行”是马来西亚最大的法律平台。我们每天为无数的平民百姓免费解除各类的法律困扰。
*加入 我们的“法律与你同行”FB 群组: http://bit.ly/fblawnjustice
*Like 我们的“法律与你同行” FB Page: http://bit.ly/lawnjusticefbpage
*Kuek, Ong & Associates. Advocates & Solicitors. No.86-1, Jalan Mahagoni 1, Bandar Botanic, 41200 Klang, Selangor Darul Ehsan. Klang Lawyer. 巴生(吧生)律师楼。#Kuek, Ong & Associates #Kuek Ong & Associates #Kuek Ong Associates #郭汪律师事务所 #郭汪律师楼
#Chinese Lawyer in Malaysia #Malaysia Lawyer #Klang Lawyer #KL Lawyer #divorce lawyer #马来西亚华人律师 #懂华文的律师 #懂华语的律师 #巴生律师 #吧生律师 #KL律师 #吉隆坡律师 #民事诉讼律师 #打官司的律师 #打离婚案的律师 #离婚律师
#取消租约 #没有付租金 #取消租约 #终止租约 #租约几时终止 #租约还有没有效 #还是不是租客 #还算不算租客 #termination of tenancy