Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

TENANCY AGREEMENT – TERMINATION – VACANT POSSESSION – FORFEITURE OF DEPOSITS

Q: I rented a unit. However sometime in November 2020, the Landlord gave me a notice to terminate the tenancy agreement by 1.12.2020. I agree. What should I do to properly deliver vacant possession?
A:
STEP 1   – Check your tenancy agreement and identify the clauses relating to delivery of vacant possession. Set out a list for ease of reference.

STEP 2   – Issue a letter to make appointment with the Landlord to carry out a joint site inspection.

STEP 3   – After the joint site inspection, get the Landlord to sign a list of items that requires restoration (“List of Restoration”) of the unit.

STEP 4   – Perform the restoration work as per the List of Restoration. Record evidence of restoration eg. photographs before and after the restoration works.

STEP 5   – Deliver vacant possession on the date specify by the Landlord.

Q: Can the Landlord then sue me for additional restoration works outside the List of Restoration?
A: No. The List of Restoration is exhaustive. The Landlord cannot make additional demands from you as long as all restoration works as stated in the List of Restoration are carried out. No further restoration is required.

Q: Can the Landlord later sue me for delay in delivery of vacant possession because I have not carried out the restoration works or additional restoration works.
A: No. Once vacant possession is delivered, the tenant cannot be said to still be in occupation or holding over the unit. Tenant should maintain evidence of handing over the keys of the unit.

Q: Can the Landlord refuse to return my deposit?
A: No. Forfeiture of deposits only applies when there is breach of the tenancy agreement by the tenant. If the tenant has properly delivered vacant possession and follows the steps set out above, there should be no basis for Landlord to forfeit the deposit.

Case in Point: Parkwell Department Store Sdn Bhd v ICSD Ventures Sdn Bhd [2021] 1 MLJ 60.
Court of Appeal (Putrajaya) – Civil Appeal no: S-02(NCVC)(A)-1566-08 of 2017

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

STRATA MANAGEMENT – MANAGEMENT FEE SHOWDOWN – RESIDENTIAL VS. COMMERCIAL – WHO’S PAYING FOR THE EXTRAS?

In a landmark decision in Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd & Anor v Yii Sing Chiu & Anor and another appeal [2024] 1 MLJ 94 , the Court of Appeal clarified the rules on maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions in mixed strata developments. Developers and management corporations can impose different rates based on the distinct purposes of residential and commercial parcels. The judgment emphasizes fairness, ensuring residential owners bear the costs of exclusive facilities like pools and gyms, while commercial owners aren’t subsidizing amenities they don’t use. This ruling highlights the importance of transparency in budgeting and equitable cost-sharing in mixed-use properties.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

ILLEGALITY OF UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS’ CLAIM – FINDER’S FEES AND ILLEGALITY: COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS

In a pivotal ruling, the Court of Appeal clarified that finder’s fee agreements are not automatically void under the Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981. The Court emphasized that illegality must be specifically pleaded and supported by evidence, and isolated transactions do not trigger the Act’s prohibition. This decision highlights the importance of precise pleadings and a clear understanding of the law’s scope.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

COMPANIES ACT – OPPRESSION – DRAWING THE LINE: FEDERAL COURT DEFINES OPPRESSION VS. CORPORATE HARMS

In a decisive ruling, the Federal Court clarified the boundaries between personal shareholder oppression and corporate harm, overturning the Court of Appeal’s findings. The Court held that claims tied to the wrongful transfer of trademarks belonged to the company, not the individual shareholder, reaffirming that corporate harm must be addressed through a derivative action rather than an oppression claim.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

COMPANIES LAW – WHEN DIRECTORS BETRAY: COURT CONDEMNS BREACH OF TRUST AND CORPORATE MISCONDUCT

In a stark reminder of the consequences of corporate betrayal, the court found that the directors had systematically dismantled their own company to benefit a competing entity they controlled. By breaching their fiduciary duties, conspiring to harm the business, and unjustly enriching themselves, the defendants were held accountable through significant compensatory and exemplary damages, reaffirming the critical importance of trust and integrity in corporate governance.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

JURISDICTION – CHOOSING THE RIGHT COURT: THE SEA JUSTICE CASE HIGHLIGHTS WHERE MARITIME DISPUTES SHOULD BE HEARD

In The Sea Justice cases [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 383 and [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 429, the Singapore courts tackled a key question: which country should handle a maritime dispute when incidents span international waters? After examining the location of the collision, existing limitation funds in China, and witness availability, the courts concluded that China was the more appropriate forum. This ruling highlights that courts will often defer to the jurisdiction with the closest ties to the incident, ensuring efficient and fair handling of cross-border maritime disputes. This approach is also relevant in Malaysia, where similar principles apply.

Read More »
17 November ,2024 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us