Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

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

Recent Post

WHEN CARGO GOES ASTRAY: THE RISKS OF DELIVERING WITHOUT A BILL OF LADING

A recent High Court ruling involved a plaintiff who suffered severe brain damage after an emergency caesarean section at 33 weeks of pregnancy due to alleged medical negligence. The court examined whether the medical team breached their duty of care by failing to properly monitor the patient, resulting in oxygen deprivation and irreversible damage. The defendants, including doctors and nurses, were found liable for not acting on clear warning signs, leading to significant damages awarded to the plaintiff for her physical and mental disabilities.

Read More »

TORT — NEGLIGENCE — MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE — A MISSED LIFELINE: COURT HOLDS MEDICAL TEAM LIABLE FOR BRAIN DAMAGE IN HIGH-RISK PREGNANCY CASE

A recent High Court ruling involved a plaintiff who suffered severe brain damage after an emergency caesarean section at 33 weeks of pregnancy due to alleged medical negligence. The court examined whether the medical team breached their duty of care by failing to properly monitor the patient, resulting in oxygen deprivation and irreversible damage. The defendants, including doctors and nurses, were found liable for not acting on clear warning signs, leading to significant damages awarded to the plaintiff for her physical and mental disabilities.

Read More »

NAVIGATING LIABILITY: THE UNSEAWORTHINESS OF THE FJORD WIND AND ITS LEGAL CONSEQUENCES

The Court of Appeal ruled in The Fjord Wind case that the vessel was unseaworthy at the time of departure from Rosario on 30.06.1990, due to known issues with the crankpin bearings that had not been adequately addressed. This unseaworthiness led to a main engine failure shortly after departure, necessitating the transhipment of cargo and incurring additional costs.

The court found the shipowners liable for damages, emphasizing their failure to exercise due diligence in maintaining the vessel’s seaworthiness. The ruling underscores the critical importance of thorough inspections and repairs in maritime operations, highlighting the legal responsibilities of shipowners to prevent unseaworthiness and related liabilities.

Read More »

STRATA MANAGEMENT – COMMON PROPERTY CONUNDRUM: CENTRALIZED AC COSTS AND THE STRATA MANAGEMENT DEBATE

In a recent legal dispute, the classification of centralized air conditioning facilities (CACF) as common property has come under scrutiny. The Plaintiff, a parcel owner in Tower A of Menara UOA Bangsar, challenged the Management Body’s use of maintenance funds for the upkeep of CACF, which primarily benefits parcels in Tower B. The court is likely to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim, reinforcing the principle that as long as CACF serves two or more occupiers, it is deemed common property, thus falling under the Management Body’s purview without requiring reimbursement from individual parcel owners.

Read More »
en_USEN
× Contact Us