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

LEGAL UPDATES – THE SILENT CURVE: WHY MEDICAL PREMIUMS SUDDENLY SPIKE

Medical insurance premiums do not increase gradually. They rise exponentially. For many years, costs appear manageable, giving policyholders a false sense of stability. However, once the insured reaches their mid-60s, medical charges begin to accelerate sharply, and after age 70, they often outpace the premiums by several multiples.

This happens because medical insurance is funded from a finite pool of money – an investment “bucket” – while the medical rider functions like an engine that consumes more fuel as the insured ages. When the engine grows faster than the bucket can be replenished, depletion is inevitable. The result is sudden premium hikes, demands for top-ups, or policy lapse – not due to misconduct or missed payments, but due to the structural design of the product itself.

Read More »
8 February ,2026 No Comments

THE ‘COVER UNTIL 99’ MYTH – WHY INSURANCE AGENTS GET IT WRONG

Consumers must stop relying on what insurance agents say and start reading what insurance policies actually provide. ‘Medical cover until 99’ does not mean guaranteed coverage at an affordable premium. In reality, medical insurance charges rise exponentially after age 70, often making the policy mathematically unsustainable. By the time policyholders realise this, they are told to top up tens of thousands of ringgit or lose coverage altogether.

Read More »
8 February ,2026 No Comments

STRATA TITLES ACT – DEVELOPER MUST ACCOUNT FOR COMMON PROPERTY COMPENSATION: HIGH COURT IMPOSES CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST

In JMB Kelana Square v Perantara Properties Sdn Bhd & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 51, the High Court held that a developer who received compensation for land compulsorily acquired for the LRT 3 project could not retain sums attributable to common property. Although the compensation was paid entirely to the developer as registered proprietor, the Court found that part of the acquired land constituted common property, and the developer therefore held RM6.05 million on constructive trust for the Joint Management Body. The decision affirms that JMBs have proprietary standing to recover compensation for common property and that courts will intervene to prevent unjust enrichment in strata developments.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 No Comments

UNFAIR DISMISSAL – MEDICAL LEAVE IS NOT MISCONDUCT: HIGH COURT UPHOLDS INDUSTRIAL COURT’S PROTECTION OF SICK EMPLOYEE

In Aerodarat Services Sdn Bhd v Lawerance Raj a/l Arrulsamy & Anor [2025] 11 MLJ 26, the High Court dismissed an employer’s judicial review and affirmed that prolonged medical leave does not, by itself, amount to misconduct justifying dismissal. The Court held that the employer failed to prove the critical element of intention not to return to work or unwillingness to perform contractual duties, despite high absenteeism caused by serious illness and surgery. The ruling reinforces that employers must distinguish between genuine illness and misconduct, and cannot rely on medical absence alone to terminate employment.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 No Comments

WILL AND PROBATE – COURT OF APPEAL INVALIDATES WILL OF 97-YEAR-OLD TESTATOR: CAPACITY, SUSPICION AND UNDUE INFLUENCE PROVED

In Kong Kin Lay & Ors v Kong Kin Siong & Ors [2025] 5 MLJ 891, the Court of Appeal set aside a will executed by a 97-year-old testator, holding that there was real doubt as to testamentary capacity, compounded by serious suspicious circumstances and undue influence by certain beneficiaries. The Court emphasised that while the “golden rule” is not a rule of law, failure to obtain medical confirmation of capacity where doubt exists is a grave omission. Credibility issues with the drafting solicitor, beneficiary involvement in the will’s preparation, and suppression of evidence led the Court to declare the will invalid and order intestacy.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 No Comments

NOT AN ‘AGREEMENT TO AGREE’: ENGLISH COURT OF APPEAL SAVES LONG-TERM SUPPLY CONTRACT DESPITE OPEN PRICE CLAUSE

In KSY Juice Blends UK Ltd v Citrosuco GmbH [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 581, the UK Court of Appeal held that a long-term supply contract was not unenforceable merely because part of the price was stated as “open price to be fixed”. The Court implied a term that, in the absence of agreement, the price would be a reasonable or market price, noting that the product’s value could be objectively benchmarked against the market price of frozen concentrated orange juice. Emphasising that courts should preserve commercial bargains rather than destroy them, the decision confirms that section 8(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 operates as a saving provision, not a bar to enforceability.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us