Omnix (M) Sdn Bhd v 1. ) Jabatan Agama Islam Selangor (BA-22NCvC-324-08/2022)

1.

PANCAR BAKTI SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 201601001906 [1172832-M]) – DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT Introduction [1] The Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants are for – • a declaration that the tenancy agreements entered into pursuant to the arrangements made between the Plaintiff and the 32 sites of Surau, Sekolah Rendah Agama, Masjid, Madrasah and KAFA Integrasi are valid, binding on and enforceable against the First Defendant. 23/11/2023 13:40:18 BA-22NCvC-324-08/2022 Kand. 106 • an order that the First Defendant shall adhere to and comply with the terms of the tenancy agreements. • an order that the First Defendant retract its notices of eviction and a further order restraining the First Defendant from issuing notice of eviction. • an injunction prohibiting the Defendants from interfering with the Plaintiff’s peaceful enjoyment of its tenancies at the 32 sites of Surau, Sekolah Rendah Agama, Masjid, Madrasah and KAFA Integrasi. • an injunction prohibiting the Defendants from interfering with the Plaintiff’s business operation at the 32 sites of Surau, Sekolah Rendah Agama, Masjid, Madrasah and KAFA Integrasi including prohibiting the Defendants from taking any steps or doing anything that will affect the operation of the Plaintiff’s Infrastructure and Equipment at the 32 sites. [2] After hearing this Suit in a full trial proceeding, in the eve of my decision on 16-10-2023, the Plaintiff and the First Defendant has agreed to enter a consent judgment with the agreed terms of settlement. Therefore, I have decided the claims between the Plaintiff against the Second Defendant where I have allowed the Plaintiff’s claims with costs (subject to allocator fee) and my grounds of decision (in Bahasa) is as follows: KEPUTUSAN SELEPAS PERBICARAAN PENUH Permohonan Defendan Kedua (D2) untuk menyewa tapak: Ikatan Dokumen Bersama/B muka surat 170 hingga 215 di mana surat Defendan Pertama (D1) kepada D2 mengenai permohonan D2 untuk menyewa tapak struktur menara telekomunikasi di 9 buah Surau dan sebuah Sekolah Rendah Agama bagi tempoh 3 tahun dengan kadar bayaran RM3000.00 sebulan tertakluk kepada syarat yang ditentukan dalam perenggan 3 surat tersebut. Terma sewaan & Surat Setuju Terima Tawaran ditandatangani & dilampirkan dalam surat tersebut. Terma sewaan: • bayaran sewa bulanan ialah RM3000.00. • wang sewaan dibayar kepada Tabung Infak Jariah Umat Islam Selangor (TIJARI). Mahkamah ini mendapati 10 tawaran sewaan yang diberikan oleh D1 kepada D2 adalah melibatkan Surau dan Sekolah Rendah Agama yang berikut adalah Surau dan Sekolah Rendah Agama yang perjanjian sewaan masih berkuatkuasa antara Plf dengan pihak Surau dan Sekolah Rendah Agama tersebut: i. Surau Al-Ikhlas, Bandar Putera, Klang ii. Surau Al-Ikhwan, Kota Damansara, Petaling Jaya iii. Surau Istiqamah, Seksyen 6, Bandar Rinching, Semenyih iv. Surau An-Nur, Bandar Country Homes, Rawang v. Surau Al-Ehsan, Taman Matang Jaya, Sungai Buloh vi. Sekolah Rendah Agama Sungai Sekamat, Jalan Sungai Sekamat, Kajang vii. Surau Al-Amin, Seksyen 18, Shah Alam viii. Surau Ampang Saujana, Ampang ix. Surau Al-Makmur, Bandar Rinching, Semenyih x. Surau Al-Hidayah, Bandar Saujana Putra, Kuala Langat Mahkamah ini telah meneliti titah D.Y.M.M Sultan Selangor kepada D1 bertajuk “Tawaran Secara Keutamaan (First Right of Refusal) kepada Anak Syarikat Majlis Agama Islam Selangor (MAIS) bagi Sewaan Tanah/Strata di bawah Kawalan Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam Selangor (JAIS) untuk Tujuan Pembinaan Struktur Menara Telekomunikasi” yang jelas maksudnya iaitu – “Perenggan 2 surat menyatakan bahawa D.Y.M.M Sultan Selangor menitahkan agar D1 memberikan tawaran secara keutamaan (First Right Refusal) bagi sewaan tanah/strata kepada anak syarikat MAIS untuk mengambil alih sewaan tanah/strata dari mana-mana syarikat yang sewaannya tidak disambung untuk tujuan ini scara berperingkat atau melalui pengambilalihan kepentingan syarikat sedia ada atau dengan apa-apa cara yang difikirkan sesuai.”. Mahkamah ini mendapati Plaintif berjaya membuktikan tuntutannya terhadap Defendan Kedua. Oleh yang demikian membenarkan tuntutan Plaintif terhadap Defendan Kedua sebagaimana pada perenggan 29.4 dan 29.5 pernyataan tuntutan dan kos sebanyak RM5000.00 dibayar oleh Defendan Kedua kepada Plaintif. [3] The Second Defendant appeal to the Court of Appeal and in its notice of appeal, the Second Defendant states − “… PANCAR BAKTI SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 2016010011906 [1172832-M]), Perayu yang dinamakan di atas, tidak berpuas hati dengan keputusan Yang Arif Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Puan Rozi binti Bainon yang diberikan di Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam pada 16 haribulan Oktober 2023 dan merayu kepada Mahkamah Rayuan terhadap keseluruhan keputusan tersebut yang membenarkan tuntutan Responden ke atas Perayu seperti berikut: i. permohonan injunksi melarang Perayu daripada campurtangan dengan operasi kenikmatan aman sentosa Responden ke atas penyewaan bagi 32 tapak-tapak yang disenaraikan dalam Lampiran 1 (“32 Tapak-Tapak tersebut”); ii. permohonan injunksi melarang Perayu daripada campurtangan dengan operasi perniagaan Responden di 32 Tapak-Tapak tersebut semasa tempoh Perjanjian-Perjanjian Penyewaan tersebut dan Perjanjian Penyewaan Baru tersebut termasuk melarang Perayu daripada mengambil sebarang langkah atau melakukan apa-apa yang akan memberi kesan kepada operasi infrastruktur dan peralatan Responden di 32 Tapak-Tapak tersebut; dan iii. kos sebanyak RM5000.00 dibayar oleh Perayu kepada Responden.”. [4] This judgment contains my grounds for dismissing the Plaintiff’s claims. The Parties [5] The Plaintiff is a Networks Facility Provider (NFP) where its business is operating a network of multi-operator telecommunications towers at strategic locations and providing facilities and services relating to maintenance of telecommunication towers. [6] Telco companies such as Celcom, Digi, Maxis and so on install telecommunications equipment upon the telecommunication towers built by NFPs. The towers and equipment are also operated and maintained by the NFP who charge the telco cpmpanies, who are the NFP’s clients. [7] The Plaintiff has identified the strategic locations to erect and install telecommunication equipment i.e. dual-function ‘menara azan’ structures at 32 Sites that is listed below. The 32 Sites are under the jurisdiction, control, purview and supervision of the First Defendant. The 32 Sites i. Surau Ampang Saujana, Ampang. ii. Surau Al-Ikhlas, Bandar Putera, Klang. iii. Surau Istiqamah, Seksyen 6, Bandar Rinching, Semenyih. iv. Surau Al-Makmur, Seksyen 4, Bandar Rinching, Semenyih. v. Surau Al-Ikhwan, Seksyen 6, Kota Damansara, Petaling Jaya. vi. Surau Al-Hidayah, Bandar Saujana Putra, Kuala Langat. vii. Surau An-Nur, Bandar Country Homes, Rawang. viii. Surau Manba’ul Huda, Bukit Rahman Putra, Sungai Buloh. ix. Surau Balai Islam, Taman Ixora, Sepang. x. Surau Al-Saadah, Taman Jelok Indah, Kajang. xi. Surau Al-Hidayah, Taman Sri Serdang, Seri Kembangan. xii. Surau Al-Amin, Bandar Tun Hussein Onn, Cheras. xiii. Surau Al-Ehsan, Taman Matang Jaya, Sungai Buloh. xiv. Masjid Sultan Hishamuddin Shah, Pekan Batu 14, Hulu Langat. xv. Surau Al-Muhajirin, Taman Seri Melor, Kajang. xvi. Surau Nurul Iman, Taman Minang, Cheras. xvii. Surau Ar-Rahman, Taman Perindustrian Puchong. xviii. Surau An-Naimah, Lorong SS7/17J, Petaling Jaya. xix. Surau Al-Ikmal, Taman Semarak, Kajang. xx. Sekolah Rendah Agama Sungai Sekamat, Jalan Sungai Sekamat, Kajang. xxi. Surau Al-Rahim, Seksyen 8, Bandar Baru Bangi. xxii. Surau Al-Furqan, Taman Desa Kenanga, Semenyih. xxiii. Masjid KampungTunku, Petaling Jaya. xxiv. Surau Al-Falah/KAFA Al-Aman, Puchong. xxv. Surau Al-Amin, Seksyen 18, Shah Alam. xxvi. Surau Ar-Rahman, Taman Semenyih Indah, Semenyih. xxvii. Surau Al-Muhajirin, Kampung Lanchong Jaya, Seksyen 28, Shah Alam. xxviii. Sekolah Rendah Agama Bandar Melawati, Jalan Semarak, Kuala Selangor. xxix. Madrasatul Muizzah, Kampung Bukit Raya, Hulu Langat. xxx. Surau An-Nur, Taman Sri Tanjung, Semenyih. xxxi. Sekolah Rendah Agama KAFA Integrasi Al Husna Sekolah Rendah Agama, Jalan Wawasan, Pusat Bandar Puchong. xxxii. Sekolah Rendah Agama Bukit Sentosa Fasa 1, Jalan Jenjarum, Bandar Bukit Sentosa, Rawang. [8] On identifying the strategic locations, the NFPs invest large amounts and resources of time, money and effort to locate the suitable locations. The Agreed Facts [9] The parties had signed the agreed facts that is as follows:

the First Defendant is the religious Islamic authority under the state of Selangor Darul Ehsan.

the Plaintiff had issued the letter dated 20-12-2013 requesting for the First Defendant’s approval to rent and erect dual-function ‘menara azan’ structures at suitable mosque and surau areas under the jurisdiction, control, purview and supervision of the First Defendant for the purposes of installing telecommunication equipment at these mosques and surau areas.

the First Defendant issued its letter dated 8-4-2014 to the Plaintiff which inter alia states that the documents required in every application for approval are – i. supporting letters from Surau, Masjid and Sekolah Agama which are involved. ii. details of the sites applied. iii. pictorial report. iv. plan of the relevant sites.

the First Defendant has issued the eviction notices dated 12- 1-2022 and 29-4-2022 to the Plaintiff for those 32 Sites. Statement of claims against the Second Defendant [10] The Plaintiff has pleaded that the Second Defendant is also an NFP and is a competitor to the Plaintiff. [11] The Second Defendant had come into the picture and the First Defendant unduly favoured. The Second Defendant was a company linked to the First Defendant and set up to maximise the First which had come on board with a view to take over the Sites. The Defendants worked together to further their own interests at the detriment of the Plaintiff. [12] The Sites are strategic in that they are suitable locations for telecommunication towers. [13] The Plaintiff pleaded that – • the Defendants attempts to evict the Plaintiff and allows the Second Defendant to profit from the investments of time, money and had work poured into by the Plaintiff, with little to no time or effort on its own part. • the Second Defendant also attempted to evict the Plaintiff’s customers from the Sites and requested that the Sites’ managements instead support the Second Defendant’s entry of the Sites. • none of the Sites managements or committees support the presence of the Second Defendant presence at their Sites. They all support the Plaintiff’s presence and want to continue their tenancies with the Plaintiff. • the actions taken by the Defendants had seriously affect the Plaintiff’s business and the Plaintiff’s client’s operations, not to mention the wider public living in those areas which rely on the coverage provided by the Infrastructure and Equipment. The Second Defendant’s defence [14] In the defence, the Second Defendant said (reproduced in its original language) as follows: • dalam setiap masa yang material, 32 tapak (“Tapak-tapak tersebut”) yang menjadi pertikaian di dalam tindakan sini adalah tanah-tanah yang telah dirizabkan bagi kegunaan awam di mana pihak yang mempunyai kawalan mutlak terhadap tanah-tanah dan Tapak-tapak tersebut adalah Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam Negeri Selangor (“JAIS”) dan diselenggara oleh pihak Majlis Agama Islam Selangor (“MAIS”). • perkara ini adalah bertepatan dengan peruntukan di bawah Kanun Tanah Negara dan juga Warta Kerajaan Negeri Selangor. • oleh itu, pihak yang mempunyai kuasa dan hak mutlak untuk menyewakan Tapak-tapak ini adalah JAIS sahaja di atas arahan Pengarah JAIS. • Defendan Kedua merupakan penyewa yang sah bagi tapak-tapak di bawah kawalan JAIS. Perkara ini disahkan melalui satu surat daripada MAIS bertarikh 27-4-2022 di mana MAIS telah memaklumkan kepada syarikat-syarikat telekomunikasi dan juga pembekal kemudahan-kemudahan rangkaian (Network Facilities Provider/NFP) agar syarikat-syarikat telekomunikasi dan NFP ini bekerjasama dengan Defendan Kedua sebagai penyewa yang sah bagi kesemua tapak-tapak yang dikawal selia oleh pihak JAIS bermula dari 1-4-2022. • kerjasama yang dimaksudkan di atas adalah merujuk kepada proses penyerahan (handover) kesemua tapak-tapak yang berkaitan yang dahulunya diduduki (occupied) oleh syarikat-syarikat telekomunikasi dan NFP ini sebagai penyewa terdahulu yang telahpun tamat tempoh penyewaan. • intipati surat yang dikeluarkan oleh MAIS ini juga adalah bertepatan dengan titah Duli Yang Maha Mulia Sultan Selangor agar penyewaan kesemua tapak di bawah kawalan JAIS hendaklah ditawarkan dan diberikan kepada anak syarikat MAIS iaitu Defendan Kedua. • relief-relief yang dipohon oleh Plaintif di sini secara langsung berniat untuk mendesak Mahkamah ini untuk menentang titah dan seterusnya menimbulkan kemurkaan Duli Yang Maha Mulia Sultan Selangor. • selain daripada syarikat-syarikat telekomunikasi dan NFP yang sah yang mempunyai hubungan kontrak bersama JAIS (Defendan Pertama), pihak JAIS juga telah memaklumkan kepada Defendan Kedua berkenaan 32 Tapak-tapak tersebut yang telah DIDUDUKI SECARA HARAM oleh Plaintif. • PENDUDUKAN SECARA HARAM ini juga secara tidak langsung (impliedly) telah diakui oleh Plantif sendiri di mana tidak ada satu pun “perjanjian penyewaan” yang dimasuki oleh Plaintif adalah bersama JAIS sebagai satu-satunya pihak yang mempunyai kawalan mutlak terhadap Tapak-tapak tersebut selaras dengan peruntukan undang-undang yang relevan. • sebaliknya “perjanjian penyewaan” yang dimasuki oleh Plaintif adalah bersama pengerusi-pengerusi surau dan pihak sekolah yang jelas tidak mempunyai kapasiti dan/atau locus untuk menyewakan Tapak-tapak tersebut. • sejak JANUARI 2022 lagi, pihak Defendan Pertama telahpun mengarahkan Plaintif untuk mengosongkan Tapak-tapak tersebut yang telah diduduki SECARA HARAM oleh Plaintif. • setelah 9 BULAN dari tarikh arahan pengosongan dikeluarkan oleh Defendan Pertama, Plaintif masih kekal MENCEROBOH Tapak-tapak tersebut dan enggan mengosongkan Tapak-tapak tersebut. • laporan polis berkenaan PENCEROBOHAN Tapak-tapak tersebut oleh Plaintif telah dibuat oleh wakil Defendan Kedua pada 30-5-2022. • Plaintif telah memfailkan tindakan di sini dan menyalahgunakan dan memanipulasi proses Mahkamah ini untuk menafikan hak mutlak Pengarah Defendan Pertama sebagai pihak yang mempunyai kawalan sepenuhnya terhadap tanah-tanah rizab ini dan seterusnya memprejudiskan hak Defendan Kedua sebagai penyewa Tapak-tapak tersebut. • tindakan Plaintif yang jelas difailkan dengan niat tersembunyi (ulterior motive) dan menyalahgunakan proses Mahkamah ini seharusnya dan sewajarnya ditolak dan dibatalkan oleh Mahkamah ini dengan kos. PEMBELAAN SUBSTANTIF DEFENDAN KEDUA • sekitar tahun 2013, pihak Plaintif ada memohon kelulusan daripada pihak Defendan Pertama untuk menyewa dan seterusnya membina, mendirikan struktur-struktur dan seterusnya memasang peralatan telekomunikasi pada struktur-struktur tersebut yang akan didirikan di dalam kawasan-kawasan masjid dan surau yang berada di bawah bidangkuasa Pengarah Defendan Pertama. • lanjutan daripada permohonan Plaintif tersebut, Defendan Pertama telah memaklumkan kepada Plaintif bahawa, secara dasarnya, Defendan Pertama tidak mempunyai halangan berkenaan dengan permohonan Plantif tersebut. • namun begitu, Defendan Pertama telah mengarahkan Plaintif untuk terlebih dahulu mengemukakan permohonan kelulusan setiap tapak terlebih dahulu dan permohonan kelulusan ini perlulah disertakan dengan beberapa dokumen-dokumen sokongan seperti berikut: i. Surat sokongan daripada Masjid, surau dan/atau sekolah agama yang terlibat; ii. Butiran berkenaan tapak yang dipohon; iii. Laporan bergambar; dan iv. Pelan lokasi tapak yang dimaksudkan. • Plaintif TIDAK PERNAH MEMATUHI syarat-syarat yang dinyatakan secara spesifik oleh Defendan Pertama seperti yang dinyatakan. • sebaliknya, Plaintif dipercayai telah menggunakan surat yang dikeluarkan oleh Defendan Pertama untuk meyakinkan dan memperdaya (deceived) pengerusi-pengerusi surau dan pihak sekolah untuk memasuki “perjanjian penyewaan” secara terus bersama Plaintif untuk setiap tapak yang diingini oleh Plaintif. • memandangkan pengerusi-pengerusi surau dan pihak sekolah ini jelas tidak mempunyai sebarang kapasiti dan/atau locus untuk memasuki sebarang “perjanjian penyewaan” bagi Tapak-tapak tersebut bersama Plaintif, adalah jelas bahawa tidak terdapat sebarang perjanjian penyewaan yang sah yang telah ditandatangani di antara Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama. • pendudukan (occupation) dan juga struktur-struktur yang dibina oleh Plaintif di atas Tapak-tapak tersebut adalah dibina secara HARAM dan merupakan satu PENCEROBOHAN. • sebarang laporan polis yang dibuat oleh Defendan Kedua terhadap Plaintif serta notis pengusiran yang diberikan kepada pelanggan Plaintif, tidak terjumlah kepada satu campurtangan memandangkan Plaintif sendiri tidak mempunyai kapasiti yang sah untuk menduduki Tapak-tapak tersebut dan kekal sebagai PENCEROBOH. Sebaliknya, Defendan Kedua hanya menguatkuasakan haknya sebagai penyewa Tapak-tapak tersebut yang sah. • pernyataan Plaintif bahawa Plaintif kononnya terdedah kepada risiko-risiko yang substantial lanjutan daripada notis-notis pengosongan dan pengusiran yang dikeluarkan oleh Defendan-Defendan adalah masalah yang diakibatkan oleh perlakuan Plaintif sendiri (self inflicted problem). • Plaintif mempunyai pengetahuan penuh bahawa notis pengosongan telahpun dikeluarkan oleh Defendan Pertama sejak JANUARI 2022 lagi iaitu 9 BULAN dari tarikh tindakan ini difailkan. • sebarang risiko yang kerugian yang mungkin ditanggung oleh Plaintif jelas disebabkan oleh keangkuhan, kecuaian dan juga keengganan Plaintif sendiri untuk mematuhi tuntutan Defendan-Defendan sejak 9 BULAN lalu. • relief-relief yang dipohon oleh Plaintif di sini adalah satu perintah yang akan mencabuli (violated) dan merupakan satu campurtangan (interference) kepada hak Defendan Pertama dan Defendan Kedua masing-masing sebagai pihak yang berkuasa untuk mengawal tanah-tanah rizab dan juga PENYEWA YANG SAH Tapak-tapak tersebut. • Defendan Kedua memplidkan secara spesifik bahawa Mahkamah ini bukanlah satu forum yang akan memberikan relief lebih-lebih lagi kepada penceroboh (trespasser) apabila relief yang dipohon tersebut akan mencabuli dan merupakan satu campurtangan terhadap hak pihak ketiga dan/atau ke atas sesuatu perjanjian yang sah. • tuntutan Plaintif di sini adalah satu penyalahgunaan proses, mengaibkan, remeh dan menyusahkan. Adalah tidak masuk akal untuk Plaintif sebagai sebuah entiti yang jelas MENCEROBOH tanah-tanah rizab cuba untuk memanipulasi fungsi Mahkamah yang Mulia ini untuk memaksa Defendan Pertama, sebagai pihak yang diberi kuasa untuk mengawal selia tanah-tanah rizab, untuk mengiktiraf Plaintif sebagai penyewa Tapak-tapak tersebut dan seterusnya menafikan hak Defendan Kedua sebagai penyewa yang sah Tapak-tapak tersebut. Reply of defence [15] In reply, the Plaintiff has averred that – • all the engagements that the Plaintiff had with the First Defendant and with the management of the 32 Sites did not involve the Second Defendant. • the Second Defendant does not have any proprietary interest or any legally recognised interest in the 32 Sites. • MAIS’s letter dated 27-4-2022 did not state that the Second Defendant is the current and valid tenant of the 32 Sites. • matter forming the subject matter of this action is a matter concerning commercial arrangements that had been entered into by the Plaintiff and the enforcement of the Plaintiff’s right under the law. • the dispute between the Plaintiff and the First Defendant is a matter about the right to occupy and remain in occupation of the Sites, in which the Second Defendant is not a party privy to. Tenancy Agreement and the 32 sites [16] In the trial, the Plaintiff has produced and tendered 30 tenancy agreements, namely – Perjanjian Sewaan Antara Plf Dan Masjid/Surau/Sekolah Rendah Agama: i. Surau Al-Ikmal, Taman Semarak, Sg Chua, Kajang bertarikh 9-1-2014. Ikatan Dokumen Bersama/B muka surat 225 hingga 228. ii. Surau Al-Amin, Seksyen 18, Shah Alam bertarikh 9-1-2014. Ikatan Dokumen Bersama/B muka surat 229 hingga 232. iii. Surau Ampang Saujana, Ampang bertarikh 26-6-2014. Ikatan Dokumen Bersama/B muka surat 233 hingga 236. iv. Surau Al-Muhajirin, Kg Lanchong Jaya, Seksyen 28, Shah Alam bertarikh 30-6-2014. Ikatan Dokumen Bersama/B muka surat 237 hingga 240. v. Surau Al-Ehsan, Taman Matang Jaya, Sungai Buluh bertarikh 16-1-2015. Ikatan Dokumen Bersama/B muka surat 241 hingga 244. vi. Masjid Kg Tunku, Petaling Jaya bertarikh 6-4-2015. Ikatan Dokumen Bersama/B muka surat 245 hingga 248. vii. Surau Ar-Rahman, Taman Perindustrian Puchong, Puchong bertarikh 6-4-2015. Ikatan Dokumen Bersama/B muka surat 249 hingga 252. viii. Masjid Sultan Hishamuddin Alam Shah, Pekan Batu 14, Hulu Langat bertarikh 14-4-2015. Ikatan Dokumen Bersama/B muka surat 253 hingga 256. ix. KAFA Integrasi Al Husna, Jalan Wawasan, Pusat Bandar Puchong bertarikh 15-7-2015. Ikatan Dokumen Bersama/B muka surat 257 hingga 260. x. Surau Al-Furqan, Semenyih bertarikh 15-7-2015. Ikatan Dokumen Bersama/B muka surat 261 hingga 264. xi. KAFA Integrasi Al Aman, Jalan Jurutera, Kg Sri Aman, Puchong bertarikh 5-9-2015. Ikatan Dokumen Bersama/B muka surat 266 hingga 269. xii. Surau Al-Ikhwan, Taman Seksyen 6, Kota Damansara bertarikh 6-1-2016. Ikatan Dokumen Bersama/B muka surat 270 hingga 273. xiii. Surau Istiqamah, Seksyen 6, Bandar Rinching, Semenyih bertarikh 10-2-2016. Ikatan Dokumen Bersama/B muka surat 274 hingga 277. xiv. Surau Al-Makmur, Seksyen 4, Bandar Rinching, Semenyih bertarikh 10-2-2016. Ikatan Dokumen Bersama/B muka surat 278 hingga 281. xv. Surau An-Nur, Seksyen 4, Bandar Country Homes, Taman Desa, Bandar Country Homes, Rawang bertarikh 10-2-2016. Ikatan Dokumen Bersama/B muka surat 282 hingga 286. xvi. Surau Al-Amin, Taman Tun Hussin Onn, Cheras bertarikh 10- 2-2016. Ikatan Dokumen Bersama/B muka surat 287 hingga 290. xvii. Surau Nurul Iman, Taman Minang, Cheras bertarikh 10-2-

Ikatan Dokumen Bersama/B muka surat 292 hingga 295. xviii. Sekolah Rendah Agama Bandar Melawati, Jalan Semarak, Kuala Selangor bertarikh 10-2-2016. Ikatan Dokumen Bersama/B muka surat 296 hingga 299. xix. Surau Muizzah, Bukit Raya, Batu 10, Jalan Hulu Langat bertarikh 10-2-2016. Ikatan Dokumen Bersama/B muka surat 300 hingga 303. xx. Surau An-Nur, Jalan Sri Tanjung, Semenyih bertarikh 10-2-

Ikatan Dokumen Bersama/B muka surat 304. xxi. Surau Ar-Rahman, Taman Semenyih Indah, Semenyih bertarikh 10-2-2016. Ikatan Dokumen Bersama/B muka surat 305 hingga 308. xxii. Surau Al-Hidayah, Selayang bertarikh 10-2-2016. Ikatan Dokumen Bersama/B muka surat 309 hingga 312. xxiii. Surau Balai Islam, Taman Ixora, Bandar Baru Salak Tinggi, Sepang bertarikh 16-2-2016. Ikatan Dokumen Bersama/B muka surat 313 hingga 316. xxiv. Surau Al-Muhajirin, Jalan Melor 6, Taman Seri Melor, Kajang bertarikh 24-2-2016. Ikatan Dokumen Bersama/B muka surat 317 hingga 320. xxv. Sekolah Rendah Agama Bukit Sentosa, Fasa 1, Bukit Beruntung bertarikh 16-3-2016. Ikatan Dokumen Bersama/B muka surat 321 hingga 324. xxvi. Madrasah An-Na’imah, Taman Sri Kelana Jaya, Petaling Jaya bertarikh 12-4-2016. Ikatan Dokumen Bersama/B muka surat 325 hingga 333. xxvii. Surau Al-Hidayah, Bandar Saujana Putra, Puchong bertarikh 4-5-2016. Ikatan Dokumen Bersama/B muka surat 334 hingga 337. xxviii. Surau As Sa’adah, Taman Jelok Indah, Kajang bertarikh 4-5-

Ikatan Dokumen Bersama/B muka surat 338 hingga 341. xxix. Surau Manba’ul Huda, Bukit Rahman Putra, Sungai Buluh bertarikh 8-6-2016. Ikatan Dokumen Bersama/B muka surat 342 hingga 345. xxx. Surau Ar-Rahim, Bandar Baru Bangi bertarikh 27-6-2016. Ikatan Dokumen Bersama/B muka surat 346 hingga 349. [17] Another 2 tenancy agreements is in the form of Plaintiff’s letter to these 2 Surau and Sekolah Rendah Agama − i. Surau Al-Ikhlas, Bandar Putera, Klang bertarikh 21-4-2016. Ikatan Dokumen Bersama/B muka surat 350. Surat Plf bertarikh 8-7-2022. Ikatan Dokumen Bersama/B muka surat 350. ii. Sekolah Rendah Agama Sungai Sekamat, Jalan Sungai Sekamat, Kajang bertarikh 15-2-2018. Ikatan Dokumen Bersama/B muka surat 350. Surat Plf tiada tarikh. Ikatan Dokumen Bersama/B muka surat 351. [18] The terms stipulated in the tenancy agreements are and about similar to one and another, where − Terma sewaan: • the monthly rental is RM2000.00 and/or RM3500.00 and/or RM1000.00. • the tenure of the rental of the Sites is for 15 tahun and/or 7tahun + 8 tahun where the management of the Sites (Surau/Masjid/Sekolah Rendah Agama) allows the Plaintiff to remain its telecommunications equipment and the Plaintiff has agreed to add/increase the monthly rental in k 5% for every 3 years or any additional as stipulated in the agreement. • the payment of the rental is paid directly to the relevant Masjid/Surau/Madrasah/Sekolah Rendah Agama. Consent judgement entered by the Plaintiff and the First Defendant [19] The terms as agreed between the Plaintiff and the First Defendant are – “PENGHAKIMAN PERSETUJUAN TINDAKAN INI telah dibicarakan di hadapan Yang Arif Puan Rozi binti Bainon pada 24 dan 25 Ogos 2023 DAN ATAS PERMOHONAN Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama dipanggil untuk sebutan pada hari ini DALAM KEHADIRAN Josephine Tiew Yenn, peguam bagi Plaintif dan Nurul Izzah binti Abdul Mutalib, Penolong Penasihat Undang-Undang bagi Defendan Pertama MAKA ADALAH DIPERINTAHKAN SECARA PERSETUJUAN di antara Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama bahawa:

Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama akan memasuki perjanjian penyewaan bagi 34 Tapak yang disenaraikan di Lampiran 1 (“Tapak-Tapak”) atas terma-terma yang akan dipersetujui di antara Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama, termasuk tetapi tidak terhad kepada terma-terma berikut: a. Tempoh sewaan selama tiga (3) tahun dari tarikh perjanjian ditandatangani. b. Sewaan sebanyak RM3,000.00 sebulan bagi setiap satu Tapak-Tapak tersebut.

Perjanjian-perjanjian sedia ada yang dimasuki oleh Plaintif dengan pihak-pihak pengurusan Tapak-Tapak dikekalkan sehingga perjanjian yang tersebut di dalam perenggan 1 di atas dimuktamadkan.

Selain daripada yang berasal daripada terma-terma yang diperuntukkan di perenggan 1 dan 2 di atas, Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama tidak mempunyai sebarang tuntutan di antara satu sama lain berkaitan dengan Tapak-Tapak tersebut.

Plaintif membayar Defendan Pertama RM10,000.00 sebagai kos bagi tindakan ini. Bertarikh pada 16 Oktober 2023.”. The Law Burden of proof: [20] In Pernec Ebiz Sdn Bhd v. CCI Technology Sdn Bhd & Ors [2015] 2 MLJ 117, the Court of Appeal held − “Even though the burden upon a plaintiff in a civil suit is only to prove its case upon a balance of probabilities, it must present its case sufficiently clearly to do so. It cannot merely file pleadings, file bundles of documents, proceed to trial, call witnesses to testify and argue on the various issue and expect the court to make out the case on its own for one party or other. … Where the party upon whom the burden of proving its case lies fails to do so, it fails to prove its case and its action must be dismissed.”. [21] Lord Goddard in Bonham-Carter v. Hyde Park Hotel Ltd 64 TLR 177 at p. 178 held− “… plaintiffs must understand that if they bring actions for damages it is for them to prove their damage; it is not enough to write down the particulars, so to speak, throw them at the head of the court, saying: ‘This is what I have lost, I ask you to give me these damages’. They have to prove it.”. [22] The well-established principle that the burden of proof at all times is borne by the Plaintiff on the balance of probabilities to establish his case against the Defendant/s or the existence of a legally enforceable claim against the Defendant/s. It is upon the Plaintiff, and certainly not the Defendant, to discharge that burden. It is for the Plaintiff to prove his case and satisfy the court that his claim is well-founded before the court can grant judgment on his claim. Findings of The Court [23] In the 2 days trial, I have listened carefully on the testimony by the witnesses called i.e. – for the Plaintiff: Suresh A/L Superamaniam, Director of Plaintiff (SP- 1), Aris Bin Abdul Samad, technician (SP-2) and Musanin bin Min, chairman of Surau (SP-3). for the First Defendant: Mohd Hafiz Bin Ahmad, Penolong Pegawai Tadbir at JAIS (SD-1). for the Second Defendant: Mohd Solihin Bin Tasman, Chief Operating Officer at the Second Defendant (SD-2). [24] In evaluating the evidences after the trial, I find that out of the 32 Sites as claimed by the Plaintiff, there are 10 letters of offer sent by the First Defendant to the Second Defendant that involved the following Surau and Sekolah Rendah Agama where the tenancy agreements still in force between the Plaintiff and the management of that Surau and Sekolah Rendah Agama: i. Surau Al-Ikhlas, Bandar Putera, Klang ii. Surau Al-Ikhwan, Kota Damansara, Petaling Jaya iii. Surau Istiqamah, Seksyen 6, Bandar Rinching, Semenyih iv. Surau An-Nur, Bandar Country Homes, Rawang v. Surau Al-Ehsan, Taman Matang Jaya, Sungai Buloh vi. Sekolah Rendah Agama Sungai Sekamat, Jalan Sungai Sekamat, Kajang vii. Surau Al-Amin, Seksyen 18, Shah Alam viii. Surau Ampang Saujana, Ampang ix. Surau Al-Makmur, Bandar Rinching, Semenyih x. Surau Al-Hidayah, Bandar Saujana Putra, Kuala Langat [25] I have also read titah D.Y.M.M Sultan Selangor to the First Defendant Re: “Tawaran Secara Keutamaan (First Right of Refusal) kepada Anak Syarikat Majlis Agama Islam Selangor (MAIS) bagi Sewaan Tanah/Strata di bawah Kawalan Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam Selangor (JAIS) untuk Tujuan Pembinaan Struktur Menara Telekomunikasi” that is clear in its meaning – “Perenggan 2 surat menyatakan bahawa D.Y.M.M Sultan Selangor menitahkan agar D1 memberikan tawaran secara keutamaan (First Right Refusal) bagi sewaan tanah/strata kepada anak syarikat MAIS untuk mengambil alih sewaan tanah/strata dari mana-mana syarikat yang sewaannya tidak disambung untuk tujuan ini secara berperingkat atau melalui pengambilalihan kepentingan syarikat sedia ada atau dengan apa-apa cara yang difikirkan sesuai.”. [26] The learned counsel for the Second Defendant submits that − “25. The said MAIS Letter is also a reflection of the decree by His Royal Highness the Sultan of Selangor in which His Royal Highness has commanded that MAIS’ subsidiary and related company shall be given first right of refusal on any sites controlled by JAIS.”. [27] This Court is puzzled why the learned counsel for the Second Defendant ignored the words “menitahkan agar D1 memberikan tawaran secara keutamaan (First Right Refusal) bagi sewaan tanah/strata kepada anak syarikat MAIS untuk mengambil alih sewaan tanah/strata dari mana-mana syarikat yang sewaannya tidak disambung untuk tujuan ini secara berperingkat atau melalui pengambilalihan kepentingan syarikat sedia ada atau dengan apa-apa cara yang difikirkan sesuai.”. [28] If the interpretation of the underlined words are wrong, the Second Defendant must call the writer of that letter to explain the meaning of the underlined words. [29] Based on the tenancy agreements the tenure for the rent is 15 year from the date of each of the tenancy agreements as referred by the Plaintiff in the trial. There is no new tenancy agreement been referred to in the trial. [30] The consent judgment entered between the Plaintiff and the First Defendant has agreed and solved the issues raised by them and also material matters to the case against the Second Defendant. The agreed terms are that –

the Plaintiff and the First Defendant will enter into tenancy agreements for the 34 Sites as listed on the agreed terms by them.

the existing agreements that the Plaintiff has entered into with the management of the Sites are still valid, subsisting, enforceable and binding until the tenancy agreement to be entered by the Plaintiff and the First Defendant be finalized.

other than the terms as agreed in the consent judgment, there are no claims against the Plaintiff and the Defendant relating to the Sites. [31] With that, this Court is correct in deciding that the Plaintiff and the First Defendant had settled their disputes pertaining to –

instructions/directions made by the First Defendant and/or any of the local authority as regards to the specification to erect/install the Plaintiff’s Infrastructure and Equipment at the Sites in accordance to the relevant laws such as Akta Jalan, Parit dan Bangunan 1974.

there are no more issues pertaining to – • Whether the Impugned Tenancies entered between the Plaintiff and the management of the 32 sites are valid and binding towards the First Defendant? • Whether the doctrine of estoppel is applicable in favor of the Plaintiff? • Whether the Second Defendant is the lawful tenant in relation to the 10 sites? • If the answer to the above is in affirmative, whether the 2nd Defendant is legally entitled to evict the Plaintiff from the 10 sites? [32] The learned counsel for the Second Defendant submits that “Based on this evidence given by the Plaintiff’s own witness, it is crystal clear that the Plaintiff has indeed manipulated the 1st Defendant’s Letter to deceive and hoodwink the management of the said 32 sites to enter into tenancy agreements with the Plaintiff under the pretext that consent has been given by the 1st Defendant.”. I disagree. There is no deceive nor manipulation done by the Plaintiff, but it is caused by the poor management and supervision by the First Defendant. [33] The management of the 32 Sites had benefitted by receiving the rental payments from the Plaintiff. The money received is for the Masjid/Surau/Madrasah/Sekolah Rendah Agama/KAFA Integrasi to do its operation and management. That is lawful and valid. [34] When the consent judgment entered between the Plaintiff and the First Defendant, it is up to the First Defendant to deal with the Second Defendant pertaining to the letters of offer and/or tenancy agreements for the 10 Sites. By the way, the titah D.Y.M.M Sultan Selangor to the First Defendant is an instruction that the Second Defendant should not take over the 10 Sites since the tenancy agreements between the Plaintiff and the 10 Sites are still valid and enforceable. This Court also under impression that the consent judgment is so welcome because that is the correct interpretation of the titah. [35] The action taken by the Second Defendant as the Second Defendant claimed that it is the lawful tenant of the 10 Sites and therefore has the right to evict the Plaintiff is totally collapsed immediately after the consent judgment been entered between the Plaintiff and the First Defendant. The tenancy agreement of the 10 Sites are still exist, subsisting, enforceable and binding. The Plaintiff is the right tenant for the 10 Sites. [36] The learned counsel for the Second Defendant’s submission that – “82. Being the LAWFUL TENANT, the 2nd Defendant humbly submits that the 2nd Defendant is armed with exclusive possession over the 10 sites and legally entitled to evict a trespasser.” ...

In view of the above and the 10 Tenancy Agreements executed between the 2nd Defendant and the proper Controlling Officer over the 10 sites, the 2nd Defendant humbly submits that the 2nd Defendant is indeed a prima facie lawful tenant of the 10 sites.

Being a lawful tenant, it is the 2nd Defendant legal rights and entitlement to lodge police report against the Plaintiff for the trespass and subsequently to evict the Plaintiff from the 10 sites.

In fact, the 2nd Defendant’s right to evict the Plaintiff being trespasser is duly admitted by the Plaintiff’s own witness, PSP-1, during cross examination.”. (emphasis added), I disagree. [37] Thus, the Plaintiff is entitle to seek the relief to injunct the Second Defendant, who is not being LAWFUL TENANT, from evicting the Plaintiff, being trespasser. The case cited by the learned counsel for the Second Defendant in Sidek Bin Haji Muhamad & 461 Ors V The Government Of The State Of Perak & Ors [1982] 1 MLJ 313 is not applicable here. [38] In the trial, the Plaintiff has proved that its claims for the declaratory and injunctive reliefs is centred on the Tenancy Agreements that is valid, subsisting and binding upon the First Defendant. [39] Even though before the trial begins, the issue that the management of the 32 Sites is not the correct party and/or should not enter the tenancy agreements are all resolved when the First Defendant has agreed “to sit down” with the Plaintiff to revetting, redo etc with the tenancy agreements. [40] Therefore, determination of this core issue leads to the entitlement to reliefs. This Court finds that the tenancies and occupancies by the Plaintiff on the Sites are lawful and valid, then the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff (which are purely declaratory and injunctive in nature) are granted. [41] The Plaintiff as the lawful tenant for the 32 Sites is entitle to seek an injunction prohibiting the Second Defendant from – • interfering with the the Tenancy Agreements. • taking any steps or doing anything that will affect Infrastructure and Equipment at these 32 sites. • issuing notice of eviction of the same nature or upon the same ground. • interfering with the Plaintiff’s peaceful enjoyment of its tenancies for the 32 sites. • interfering with the Plaintiff’s business operation at the 32 Sites during the term of the Tenancy Agreements including prohibiting the Second Defendant from taking any steps or doing anything that will affect the operation of the Plaintiff’s Infrastructure and Equipment at the 32 Sites. [42] The Plaintiff avers that the Second Defendant is actually a competing company. The Second Defendant is a company linked to the First Defendant. So far from the evidence before me, the documents had showed that the Second Defendant had detriment the Plaintiff’ business. [43] The First Defendant has offered and later the Second Defendant has signed the tenancy agreement for the 10 Sites that already occupied via tenancy agreements between the Plaintiff and the management of the Surau/Sekolah Rendah Agama. [44] The Plaintiff has tendered documentary evidence that the Infrastructure and Equipment at the Sites requires investment of substantial amounts of money. A tower alone costs RM100,000.00 to RM200,000.00 just to build. [45] This Court agrees with the Plaintiff any attempts to evict the Plaintiff and allows the Second Defendant to profit from the investments of time, money and had work poured into by the Plaintiff, with little to no time or effort on its own part. The location of the 10 Sites as claimed by the Second Defendant as the lawful tenant is indeed belong to the Plaintiff who found the 10 Sites. [46] The payments of the rental by the Plaintiff as the tenant to the bank accounts of the Masjid/Surau/Sekolah Rendah Agama are based on the subsisting tenancy agreements and it have been done the contract is for few years more to go/expires. [47] This Court recognized the presence of the Second Defendant as the company that related to the First Defendant. However, the fact that the Second Defendant has the similar business liked the Plaintiff, the Second Defendant is the lawful tenant and the Second Defendant has the right and power to evict the Plaintiff just because the Tenancy Agreement are invalid are all gone when the consent judgment entered between tha Plaintiff and the First Defendant. Further to say, the “special letter” from the Istana Negeri Selangor is enough to say that the First Defendant should not caused any injustice to the Plaintiff who is the lawful tenant under the Tenancy Agreements. [48] The Plaintiff is subject to the requirements under the laws to ensure that its Infrastructure and Equipment at the Sites must comply with the First Defendant and the local authority guidelines. [49] The Plaintiff has initiated this Suit against the two Defendants when it is clear that the steps and action taken by the Defendants had truly affect the Plaintiff’s business and the risks suffered by the Plaintiff are no an illusion. The notices to evict the Plaintiff are not due to the Plaintiff’s self inflicted problem. The risks are coming and started from the First Defendant and/or the Second Defendant themselves. [50] In determining the claims against the Second Defendant by looking strictly on the consent judgement entered between the Plaintiff and the First Defendant, my decisions are that –

the Tenancy Agreements are valid, subsisting and binding until their stated expiry dates.

the eviction notices should not be executed.

the 10 Sites offered and/or already signed the Tenancy Agreements between the First Defendant and the Second Defendant is for these 2 parties to solve.

the Second Defendant is injunct from interfering with the Plaintiff’s peaceful enjoyment of the tenancies for the 32 Sites.

the Second Defendant is injunct from interfering with the Plaintiff’s business operation at the 32 Sites until their stated expiry dates. And I allowed order for costs in the sum of RM5000.00. Conclusion [51] In view of the foregoing reasons, I find that the Plaintiff had successfully on a balance of probability in demonstrating that the Plaintiff is not a trespasser. The Plaintiff is entitled to seek from this Court an injunction to restrain the Second Defendant from repossessing the 10 Sites. [52] There are valid Tenancy Agreements exists between the Plaintiff and the First Defendant. [53] As long as the Tenancy Agreement for the 10 Sites still binding on the Plaintiff, the Second Defendant cannot claim to be the lawful tenant pertaining to the 10 sites; and is legally authorized and empowered to evict the Plaintiff from the said 10 sites accordingly. [54] The Second Defendant must patietly wait till the Tenancy Agreement expires and I would like to repeat titah D.Y.M.M Sultan Selangor to the First Defendant that – “Perenggan 2 surat menyatakan bahawa D.Y.M.M Sultan Selangor menitahkan agar D1 memberikan tawaran secara keutamaan (First Right Refusal) bagi sewaan tanah/strata kepada anak syarikat MAIS untuk mengambil alih sewaan tanah/strata dari mana-mana syarikat yang sewaannya tidak disambung untuk tujuan ini scara berperingkat atau melalui pengambilalihan kepentingan syarikat sedia ada atau dengan apa-apa cara yang difikirkan sesuai.”. Dated: 23 November 2023. RoziBainon ( ROZI BINTI BAINON ) Judicial Commissioner Shah Alam High Court NCvC12 Counsels: For the Plaintiff: Joshua Chong Wan Ken together with Josephine Tiew Yenn & Chon Yi Ning Tetuan Raja, Darryl & Loh, Kuala Lumpur. For the First Defendant: Nurul Izzah binti Abdul Mutalib Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Selangor, Shah Alam. For the Second Defendant: Nik Mohamad Syakhir bin Mohd Yasin Tetuan Zain Megat & Murad, Kuala Lumpur.