Focus 88 Sdn Bhd v 1. ) Kok Kai Yan (WA-22NCvC-158-04/2023)

Enclosure 1 which is the Writ of Summons was fixed before me on 04- 09-2023 for PTCM.

I struck out the Writ of Summons with liberty to file afresh with cost of RM 5,000 subject to allocatur after hearing submissions by counsel.

My reasons, in short, is that the claim here is in fact a landlord and tenant dispute which under Section 65 [1] of the Subordinate Courts Act 1948 falls within the unlimited jurisdiction of the Sessions Court.

In addition, there will be a multiplicity of proceedings if I allow this suit to continue at the High Court as the landlords / defendants here have filed a suit at the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court Civil Suit No. WA-A52NCvC-290-04/2023 against the tenant / plaintiff here. [“Sessions Court Suit”]

The defendants are agreeable to transfer this suit to the Sessions Court to be heard together with the Sessions Court Suit. But the plaintiff has refused to allow its suit to be transferred. I observe that such an order for transfer was made in Beh Chew Tai & Yang Lain v DC & A Developments Sdn Bhd [2020] 1 LNS 1889 HC, by Azimah Omar J.

The plaintiff’s counsel’s refusal has resulted in me striking out its Writ of Summons, but with liberty to file afresh so as not to prejudice the S/N fqwKIwhH3Uz4ekkN1vBhQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 plaintiff. This will enable the plaintiff to file a fresh suit at the Sessions Court. But instead, the plaintiff has filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal against my order.

These are my Grounds of decision.

It is clear from the facts pleaded in the Statement of Claim despite the convoluted drafting that in essence what we have is a landlord and tenant dispute.

This is clear from what the plaintiff has pleaded - C. PERJANJIAN PENYEWAAN

Satu Memorandum Pajakan bertarikh 05.06.2009 yang dimasuki di antara Plaintif dan Defendan-Defendan di mana adalah dipersetujui bahawa tempoh penyewaan Premis tersebut adalah untuk satu tempoh tidak kurang dari 12 tahun dan Defendan-Defendan dikehendaki untuk memperolehi kebenaran dari pihak berkuasa berkenaan. Selaras dengan Memorandum Pajakan tersebut, Plaintif telah membayar RM15,000.00 kepada Defendan-Defendan sebagai deposit

Atas dorongan Defendan-Defendan di atas, Plaintif dan Defendan-Defendan telah memasuki dalam satu kontrak kolateral di mana Plaintif telah bersetuju untuk menyewa Premis tersebut atas akujanji Defendan-Defendan S/N fqwKIwhH3Uz4ekkN1vBhQ …

Dalam premis ini, Plaintif memplidkan bahawa notis penamatan tersebut adalah pramatang, cacat dan melanggar perjanjian penyewaan tersebut kerana ia tidak mematuhi Kanun Tanah Negara. Isu undang-undang akan dihujah oleh peguamcara Plaintif pada bicara kemudian. …

Plaintif memplidkan bahawa sekiranya kononnya perjanjian penyewaan tersebut dijadikan “monthly periodic tenancy” (yang dinafikan dengan sekeras-kerasnya), maka notis penamatan tersebut adalah cacat kerana penamatan Perjanjian tersebut dibuat 2 hari selepas tarikh notis penamatan tersebut. [Emphasis added] Section 65 [1] of the Subordinate Courts Act 1948 - all landlord and tenant disputes fall within the unlimited jurisdiction of the Sessions Court [10] Under Section 65 [1] of the Subordinate Courts Act 1948 all landlord and tenant disputes fall within the unlimited jurisdiction of the Sessions Court. S/N fqwKIwhH3Uz4ekkN1vBhQ [11] Section 65 [1] of the Subordinate Courts Act reads – Civil jurisdiction of Sessions Courts 65 (1) Subject to the limitations contained in this Act, a Sessions Court shall have -

unlimited jurisdiction to try all actions and suits of a civil nature in respect of motor vehicle accidents, landlord and tenant and distress. [Emphasis added] [12] In my view it is an abuse of process for the plaintiff to file its suit in the High Court in clear defiance of the express wording of Section 65 [1] of the Subordinate Courts Act 1948. There is in existence the Sessions Court suit filed by the defendants against the plaintiff based on the same tenancy agreement [13] My decision is fortified by the fact that the defendants have filed the Sessions Court Suit against the plaintiff based on the same tenancy agreement. [14] The defendants’ Sessions Court Suit was filed at the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court Civil Suit No. WA-A52NCvC-290-04/2023 whereby the defendants sought reliefs, inter alia, as follows :- S/N fqwKIwhH3Uz4ekkN1vBhQ i. Declaration that the Tenancy Agreement expired and / or lapsed and / or terminated since 07-09-2022; ii. Declaration that the monthly periodic tenancy between the plaintiff and the defendants came to an end by effluxion of time on 08-03- 2023; iii. An order that the plaintiff hands over the vacant possession of the Premise; and iv. An order that the plaintiff and its guarantors, jointly and severally, pay the outstanding sum of RM 285,343.50 to the defendants. [15] To allow the suit here to proceed when there is already the Sessions Court Suit on the same landlord and tenant agreement between the same parties will lead to a multiplicity of proceedings. [16] There is a clear duplicity of proceedings. It is undesirable that two different courts are asked to decide on the same or similar issues. [See Tan Sri Rozali Ismail v Abdul Hadi Hamad & Anor [2023] MLRHU 246 at (76), (2023) 3 CLJ 113 at (76) and (2023) 9 MLJ 346 at (76), Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Ltd v National Union of Bank Employees & Ors [1985] 1 MLJ 439 Wan Hamzah J and Lesco Development Corp Sdn Bhd v Malaysia Building Society Bhd [1988] 2 MLJ 184 SC]. Ground relied on by plaintiff to support right to file in High Court - a Sessions Court cannot grant the prayer for relief against forfeiture S/N fqwKIwhH3Uz4ekkN1vBhQ [17] Plaintiff contends a Sessions Court cannot grant the prayer for relief against forfeiture prayed for in its Statement of Claim at paragraphs 76 and 77a. [18] Counsel says this is because the relief against forfeiture provided for in Section 237 of the National Land Code (Revised 2020) refers to “the Court”, and “Court” under Section 5 Interpretation means “the High Court in Malaya”. [19] Section 237 of the National Land Code (Revised 2020) reads –

Relief against forfeiture.

Any lessee, sub-lessee or tenant against whom any person or body is proceeding to enforce a forfeiture may apply to the Court for relief against the forfeiture; and the Court-

may grant or refuse relief as it thinks fit, having regard to all the circumstances of the case (including, if the case is one to which the provisions of section 235 applied, the proceedings and conduct of the parties under that section); and

if it grants relief, may do so on such terms as it thinks fit.

(2)The provisions of sub-section (1) shall have effect notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in the lease, sub-lease or tenancy in question. S/N fqwKIwhH3Uz4ekkN1vBhQ [Emphasis added] [20] Counsel for the defendants disagrees and cites Section 109 of the Subordinate Courts Act 1948 which says - Provision to prevent conflict of laws

In the event of inconsistency or conflict between this Act and any other written law in force at the commencement of this Act, the provisions this Act shall prevail. [Emphasis added] [21] I agree with the defendants’ counsel. The express wording of Section 65 [1] of the Subordinate Courts Act shall prevail over the Section 5 Interpretation in the NLC. In the event of inconsistency. This is expressly provides in Section 109 of the Subordinate Courts Act 1948. High court has power to transfer a suit to the Sessions Court if it should have been filed in the Sessions Court in the first place [22] In my view, the Court has inherent power to transfer a suit to the Sessions Court if it should have been filed in the Sessions Court in the first place. [23] Such an order was made in Beh Chew Tai & Yang Lain v DC & A Developments Sdn Bhd [2020] 1 LNS 1889 HC. Azimah Omar J said - S/N fqwKIwhH3Uz4ekkN1vBhQ [36] Dalam menjawab hujahan peguam Defendan yang menghujahkan bahawa Mahkamah ini tidak mempunyai kuasa untuk memindahkan kes ini ke Mahkamah Seyen kerana tidak ada permohonan dibuat menurut Aturan 57 Kaedah 1(2) KKM

[37] Jawapan Mahkamah ini mudah. Perintah yang dibuat oleh Mahkamah ini ini bukanlah pemindahan yang berdasarkan permohonan pihak-pihak, tetapi berdasarkan persoalan undang-undang dan kedudukan undang-undang. Dalam perkara soalan undang-undang, Mahkamah ini mempunyai kuasa yang tidak terhad bagi membuat penentuan mengenainya. [38] Berdasarkan alasan-alasan di atas dan dengan memgambil kira tuntutan Plaintif-plaintif yang juga memohon relif deklarasi dalam tindakannya, Mahkamah ini berpandangan bahawa Mahkamah Sesyen adalah Mahkamah yang sepatutnya membicarakan tuntutan Plaintif-plaintif ini. [39] Sebenarnya, apa yang sepatutnya Mahkamah ini perintahkan adalah membatalkan tindakan Plaintif-plaintif dengan kebebasan memfailkan semula untuk membolehkan setiap Plaintif memfailkan tindakan mereka secara tindakan berasingan. Akan tetapi peguam Plaintif telah merayu-rayu agar tuntutan Plaintif-plaintif tidak dibatalkan bagi pemfailan semula tetapi sebalik dipindahkan ke Mahkamah Sesyen. [40] Justeru, Mahkamah ini telah memerintahkan supaya kes dipindahkan ke Mahkamah Sesyen untuk dibicarakan. [Penekanan saya] S/N fqwKIwhH3Uz4ekkN1vBhQ [24] As I have said earlier, the plaintiff has refused to ask that this suit be transferred to the Sessions Court to be heard with the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court Civil Suit No. WA-A52NCvC-290-04/2023. [25] I therefore strike out this Writ of Summons with liberty to file afresh. This will enable the plaintiff to file a fresh suit at the Sessions court, if it so wishes.

[26] I hereby strike out the Writ of Summons with liberty to file afresh with cost of RM 5,000 subject to allocatur. ………(signed).....………. Leong Wai Hong Judicial Commissioner High Court of Malaya Kuala Lumpur (NCVC 10) Dated: 17th October 2023 S/N fqwKIwhH3Uz4ekkN1vBhQ COUNSEL: 1) Ho Hon Keong for plaintiff. (Ho & Ho (Kuala Lumpur)) 2) Joachim Xavier and Afiq Iskandar bin Aziz for defendants. (Xavier & Koh Partnership (Kuala Lumpur)) CASES REFERRED TO: 1) Section 5 Interpretation in the National Land Code (Revised 2020). 2) Section 65 [1] of the Subordinate Courts Act 1948. 3) Section 109 of the Subordinate Courts Act 1948. 4) Section 235 of the National Land Code (Revised 2020). 5) Section 237 of the National Land Code (Revised 2020). LEGISLATION REFERRED TO: 1) Beh Chew Tai & Yang Lain v DC & A Developments Sdn Bhd [2020] 1 LNS 1889 HC. 2) Lesco Development Corp Sdn Bhd v Malaysia Building Society Bhd [1988] 2 MLJ 184 SC. 3) Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Ltd v National Union of Bank Employees & Ors [1985] 1 MLJ 439. 4) Tan Sri Rozali Ismail v Abdul Hadi Hamad & Anor [2023] MLRHU 246 at (76), (2023) 3 CLJ 113 at (76) and (2023) 9 MLJ 346. S/N fqwKIwhH3Uz4ekkN1vBhQ