Malaysia Airlines Berhad v Ssb Capital Sdn Bhd (WA-22NCvC-504-08/2018)

The applicant in this case is an added aggrieved party in a disputed civil claim filed in this court with regards to a tenancy agreement between Malaysian Airlines Bhd the Plaintiff the main tenant and SSB capital Sdn Bhd the sub tenant. The aggrieved party is the sub tenant of the Defendant and occupied the portion of a building sub tenanted by the Defendant. The Plaintiff’s claim was filed under case No. WA-22NCvC-504-08/2018 (“Case 504”)

On 28/6/2024 the Plaintiff had made an ex parte application for issuance of a Writ of Possession of the building tenanted by the Defendant as an execution of the Judgment obtained by the Plaintiff against the Defendant.

The aggrieved party now applies to the Court to ask for stay the execution of the judgment given in Case 504 as well the application by the Plaintiff for the Writ of Possession. The ex parte application by the Plaintiff for Writ of Possession is now fixed for hearing on 28/10/2024. Background facts 4. The Court in Case 504 had allowed an application for summary judgment against the Defendant under Order 14 Rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012 (“the Rules”) thereby entering Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on 16/1/2019. The judgment was for payment of arrears of rental as well as for vacant possession. S/N sHWM0O91Ski3pdVshj3bg 3 5. The summary judgment was granted by the Court as the Defendant’s had no defense against the Plaintiff’s claim for default in the payment of rentals by the Defendant. The Defendant had leased from the Plaintiff a portion of the building situated on a land belonging to Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja (KWSP) at No. 2, JalanSS7/13, Kelana Jaya, 47301 Petaling Jaya.

The Defendant had sub rented the premise to the aggrieved party who were occupying the portion of the building rented by the Defendant from the Plaintiff. The aggrieved party were affected by the Judgment as they would have to vacate the building rented from the Defendant in the event the Court allows the Plaintiff’s application for writ of possession. The aggrieved party’s grounds for the stay 7. One of the grounds for the stay by the aggrieved party is a claim filed by the aggrieved party on 3/8/2020 against the Plaintiff and the Defendant bearing the case no. WA 22NCvC -437-08/2020 (“Case 437) which has yet to be disposed of. Any order allowing the Plaintiff to take vacant possession of the premise will render the aggrieved party’s claim against the Plaintiff and the Defendant to be nugatory.

The other ground forwarded by the aggrieved party is the losses that will be suffered in the event the Plaintiff obtains vacant possession that cannot be compensated by payment of damages and cost. The losses that will be suffered by the aggrieved party in being forced to dislocate and relocate their academic campus S/N sHWM0O91Ski3pdVshj3bg being used at present premise by 1300 students furthering their studies in the medical field and 383 staff working at the academy.

The aggrieved party argues that both this factors amount to special circumstances meriting a stay of the execution of the Judgment. Apart from the special circumstances the aggrieved party is challenging the Summary Judgment obtained by the Plaintiff against the Defendant. Court’s decision 10. It is clear from the facts that the aggrieved party, although occupying the building on the premise, the nature of their occupancy is only as a sub tenant of the Defendant who themselves are sub tenants. The owner of the premise is KWSP and the Plaintiff is the main tenant.

The Court’s judgment entered in favor of the Plaintiff against the Defendant, extinguishes any rights or interest of the Defendant over their rented portion of the building situated on the premise. In consequence of this, any rights or interest the aggrieved party has over the portion of building tenanted is similarly extinguished.

Any grievance or cause of action the aggrieved party has, it is against the Defendant, as the Plaintiff or KWSP as owners of the premise although having knowledge of the tenancy, are not privy to the agreement between the aggrieved party and the Defendant. S/N sHWM0O91Ski3pdVshj3bg

In fact the Court views the aggrieved party as trespassers as they are occupying the premise after the Judgment against the Defendant has been obtained. There is no evidence either the Plaintiff or KWSP have consented the aggrieved to continue the occupation of the premise.

As the Judgment had been obtained since 2019 the aggrieved party should have made arrangements to relocate to avoid any hardship to the students. The hardships of relocating at this moment is the fault of the aggrieved party itself.

The overriding fact however being trespassers the aggrieved parties have no rights or even an interest over the premise. Their continued stay on the premise is in contempt of the Court Judgment. The application to stay execution is nothing more than an abuse of court. Conclusion 16. In the upshot the Court dismissed the aggrieved party’s application for stay of execution. Dated: 29.10.2024 sgd DATO’ HAJI AKHTAR BIN TAHIR Judge High Court of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur S/N sHWM0O91Ski3pdVshj3bg PARTIES For the Plaintiff: Nama Peguamcara: Aisyah Mohd Mustafa Kamal / Nan Muhammad Ridhwan Roslan Tetuan Zul Rafique & Partners D3-3-8, Solaris Dutamas No. 1, Jalan Dutamas 1 50480 Kuala Lumpur. For the Defendant: Nama Peguamcara: Siti Nurani Tetuan Rashid Zulkifli No. 1, Jalan Dutamas 1 50480 Kuala Lumpur. For the Applicant: Nama Peguamcara: Ananthan Moorthy Tetuan Gerard Samuel & Associates A-13A-13A Level 13A, Tower A Pinnacle @ PJ, Jalan Utara 46200 Petaling Jaya, Selangor. S/N sHWM0O91Ski3pdVshj3bg