Landlord & Tenant

This post will ONLY covers a landlord's right to recover vacant possession of demised premise from a tenant in Malaysia.

Situation:-

Tenant reluctant to vacate premise (in terms of physical occupation/tenant's belongings/chattels remain in the premise) after:-

1) tenancy agreement terminated;
2) tenancy agreement ended;
3) breach of contract (which leads to termination of tenancy agreement);
4) etc (must be lawful reasons that the premise is to be returned to the landlord).

First of all, tenancy agreement may exists from verbal agreement and/or written agreement. It's a common practice here in Malaysia that the tenancy agreement is based on a verbal agreement between both parties.

With regard to written tenancy agreement, it is also common that there is/are "self-help" provision(s) which gives right to the landlord, among others, for the followings:-

1) to re-enter premise upon 14 days (or any other no. of days specified) from the date the tenancy agreement terminated;
2) to deal with the tenant's belongings left inside the premise in a specified manner e.g. to dispose off, to place it outside the premise, to take it etc (all kind of actions beside seizure and sale under the Distress Act 1951.
3) to cut off water/electricity;
4) to lock up premise from being entered by the tenant.

All the above actions are considered to be taken by the landlord in order to take back vacant possession from the tenant (who may come from hell).

The legal issue is: whether such provisions are enforceable under the Malaysian law?

There are 2 ways to recover vacant possession that are thru self-help method or thru an action in Court. Landlord tends to choose by way of self-help method as it will save costs and time and money. Contoh2 self-help methods ni mcm kt atas tu lar. Means any action yang landlord ambil atas inisiatif sendiri. Cth lain: menggunakan kekerasan yg munasabah utk halau tenant, tukar kunci pagar, potong air/elektrik. Name pon self-help kan. Tak semua org nk pegi selesaikan semua benda dkt mahkamah. Nak lantik lawyer lar pong-pang-pong-pang plg kurang dh kne RM5,000.00 xpasal2.

As such, provisions of that kind are known as "self-help". This concept/principle/doctrine of self-help derives from common law which "refers to individuals' implementation of their rights without resorting to legal writ or consultation of higher authority".


The other way is through Court action which is provided in s. 7 of the Specific Relief Act 1950 ("the SRA") - Recovering Possession of Property - Immovable Property.


Section 7 of the SRA states that:-

"7.  Recovery of specific immovable property. (1) Subject to subsection (2), a person entitled to the possession of specific immovable property may recover it in the manner prescribed by the law relating to civil procedure. (2) Where a specific immovable property has been let under a tenancy, and that tenancy is determined or has come to an end, but the occupier continues to remain in occupation of the property or part thereof, the person entitled to the possession of the property shall not enforce his right to recover it against the occupier otherwise than by proceedings in the court. (3) In subsection (2) "occupier" means any person lawfully in occupation of the property or part thereof at the termination of the tenancy."

Pre-1992 (before amendment is made to s. 7 of the SRA) 

1)  Trustees of Leong San Thong [1987] 2 MLJ 511 – s. 7 and 8 of SRA did not exclude the remedy of self-help. These provisions were only enabling provisions which may be resorted to if the landlord chose to proceed by an action in court.

Post amendment to s. 7(2) of the SRA in 1992.

2)   Dr. Harjit Singh v. Suhaimi Samat [1995] 1 LNS 62 – the landlord locked out the tenant out of premise. The action amounted to a breach in tort and against s. 7(2) SRA as the landlord did not obtain court order to recover the premise.

3)   Er Eng Bong [2001] 1 CLJ 289 – the amended s. 7(2) of SRA “would relegate the remedy of self-help into oblivion” as the landlord can only seek to enforce his right to recover his property by way of an action in court.

4)   Nur Islam Worldwide Industries Sdn Bhd [2001] 7 CLJ 494 – landlord terminated TA due to default of payment of rental by tenant. Landlord then went on to recover the premise and sealed it off from the tenant. The Court held that:-

(case is reported in BM)

“Saya mendapati tindakan pihak defendan (landlord) memasuki dan menutup premis yang diduduki oleh plaintif pada masa yang berkenaan adalah salah, tidak sah dan tidak dibuat mengikut suatu kuasa undang-undang. Sungguhpun terdapat peruntukan kl. 4(a) perjanjian sewaan yang dimasuki di antara plaintif dengan defendan yang membolehkan defendan mendapatkan pemilikan semula premis tersebut, saya berpendapat ianya tidak boleh mengatasi peruntukan undang-undang di bawah s. 7(2) SRA 1950 dan Akta Distres 1951 yang menghendaki suatu tindakan Mahkamah diambil atau perintah mahkamah diperolehi sebelum pihak defendan mengambil semula milikannya.”

“Pihak defendan (landlord) mendakwa di atas kegagalan Plaintif (tenant) mengosongkan premis tersebut setelah defendan menamatkan perjanjian sewa tersebut plaintif menjadi seorang penceroboh dan defendan berhak mengusir dan mengambil kembali milikan harta dan premisnya. Saya berpendapat tiada bayaran sewa dibuat oleh plaintif bukanlah alas an bagi defendan untuk mengusir plaintif. Ia mungkin mengurangkan gantirugi.”

“Pihak defendan juga mendakwa bahawa beliau melaksanakan hak-haknya di bawah kl. 4(a) perjanjian sewa dan undang-undang common law “self-help” untuk masuk dan mendapat kembali milikan premis tersebut. Dalam hal ini saya berpendapat setelah pindaan dibuat kepada peruntukan s. 7(2) SRA 1950 yang berkuatkuasa 31.1.1992 melalui SR (Amendment) Act 1992, remedi “self-help” ini tidak boleh lagi dipakai.”

5)   SME Aerospace Sdn Bhd [2006] 5 CLJ 121 – the word “shall” is used in s.7(2) SRA carrying mandatory requirement in obtaining Court order to recover vacant possession.

Therefore, based on the above cases, I would conclude that the common law doctrine of self-help is no longer applicable in Malaysia though it is provided in the written contract coz technically such provision cant supersedes an existing law. 

The effect is - in simple words - to landlord, if u meet a tenant who comes from hell, there is no easy way for you to recover vacant possession, safe to say, the only way that you have is through court action and with the court order. And yes, its time consuming, and a waste of money. But that's my fellow readers, the law in Malaysia.