PRIYA SHANKARI VISVALINGAM v Inderjit Kaur A/p Jagit Singh (BA-A77-70-04/2025)

The Plaintiff filed encl. 1 to seek the following reliefs of RM4500 including the return of refundable deposit and other claims in small claim court.

Summons was served by hand to Defendant on 3rd June 2025 and Judgement in Default was entered against Defendant on 3rd July 2025.

However, Defendant filed an application to set aside JID (enclosure 6) and was not informed about the hearing date on 3rd July 2025.

Court is of the view that there are issues to be tried raised by Defendant hence the application to set aside JID made by Defendant was allowed and the case was fixed for trial.

In addition, Defendant also made a counter claim against Plaintiff for amount of RM16,510 as Plaintiff’s action of suddenly move out of the premise on 1st March 2025 without notice as the tenancy agreement is until September 2025.

Although the counter claim amount is exceeding limit of RM5000 for small claim court, the court refers to Order 93 rule 12 Rules of Court 2012 as per follows:- Continuation of proceedings where counterclaim exceeds limit (O. 93, r. 12)

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Order, where a counterclaim together with any interest thereon at the date of filing exceeds the sum of five thousand ringgit, this Order shall cease to apply and the Court shall proceed to hear the case as if the claim had been begun by a summons under Order 5. Order 14 shall not apply to a case under this rule. (2) Where the judgment entered by the Court on a counterclaim in paragraph (1) does not exceed five thousand ringgit, rule 15 of this Order shall apply in respect of costs. B) Brief Facts [8] Plaintiff was looking for an all-girls unit or room to rent near her university as her semester was starting soon in October 2024 and come across advertisement in PJS7 which is just a 5-minute walk from Taylor’s University campus. Plaintiff contacted the owner of the house and the owner introduced herself as Ms Inderjit (which later referred as Defendant in this suit). [9] Plaintiff agreed to sign the agreement on 17 September 2024 and pay the rent of RM1300 and the refundable deposit of RM2600 for the single master bedroom. However, after Plaintiff moved in, Plaintiff discovered that other rooms in the house were occupied by male students. Plaintiff raised the issue to Defendant but Defendant said the term all girls unit was not stated in the agreement. [10] Plaintiff was unhappy with the arrangement but choose to stay at the house since full payment had already been made and Plaintiff also claimed that no stamped copy of the tenancy agreement was given to Plaintiff. [11] Plaintiff further claimed that after staying in the room for two (2) months she discovered a mold infestation and cockroaches problem that caused serious health issues for her including difficulty in breathing and coughing until she had to take allergy medications due to these conditions. [12] Plaintiff also raised the issue to Defendant’s husband, Mr Harjit Singh and his advice was for her to wipe the furniture in the room and personal items. Defendant’s husband later wanted to repaint the bathroom ceiling in Plaintiff’s room. [13] On 26 February 2025, Plaintiff was informed that the bathroom ceiling would be repainted due to the severe mold infestation which was not agreeable as Plaintiff needed to use the room and the paint smell would be too strong for her to sleep at night. [14] On 28 February 2025 at around 9 pm, Plaintiff was rushing to the class and unable to unlock the front grill door despite multiple attempts and resulting to her key got stuck and broke. Plaintiff called Defendant regarding the issue and the next day Plaintiff was charged RM50 for repairing the lock hole and RM30 for a new key. Plaintiff paid RM116.50 to Defendant. [15] Due to persistent issues with the lock and key, mold infestation and male tenants issue, Plaintiff decided to move out on 28 February 2025 and no longer wanted to stay in the house. [16] Defendant enter Plaintiff’s room a day after she moved out to address the mold issue and Defendant claimed that there wasn’t any mold residue in the room. [17] Plaintiff also requested for her refundable deposit of RM2600 from Defendant on 1 March 2025. However Defendant refused to return the refundable deposit due to Plaintiff’s decision to left before tenancy agreement expires nor there is any two months notice given by Plaintiff to left the premise. [18] Plaintiff disagree with Defendant’s refusal and claim for refundable deposit be returned to her in addition to other costs amounting to RM4500 as per required in the small claim court. C) Court’s Findings [19] This small claim case was heard as summons under O. 5 ROC 2012 due to df’s counter claim exceeds RM5000 as per O. 93 r.12 ROC 2012. [20] After considering the pleadings and evidence by all witness on balance of probability, the Court is of the view that ;- i. The Plaintiff overment that she left the house in good condition was not successfully proven. Hence the security deposit was forfeited as per tenancy agreement. Court refers to pictures shown by parties during trial. ii. Her action of leaving before end of tenancy agreement which were on 5th September 2025 are in breach of tenancy agreement. iii. Eventhough Plaintiff claimed misrepresentation made by Defendant as Plaintiff want to rent all girls hostel and Defendant’s premise got male students as well however Plaintiff’s action of viewing the house before agreeing to enter into tenancy agreement with Defendant on September 2024 and stayed in the premise for before left abruptly on February 2025 proved otherwise, making the tenancy agreement valid and binding upon both parties. iv. The bills for repair works for bathroom was under Mr Harjeet’s name and not Defendant and Mr Harjeet was not called as witness hence Section 114(g) Evidence Act 1950 applies. 114 Court may presume existence of certain fact The court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct, and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. ILLUSTRATIONS The court may presume:- …

that evidence which could be and is not produced would if produced be unfavourable to the person who withholds it; … v. Thus, as the fore goings, the Plaintiff had failed to discharge her evidential burden and her claim is dismissed. No cost is allowed. vi. As for Defendant’s counter claim, court allowed prayer (a) for breach of tenancy agreement RM9100 with the cost of RM2,145 as provided under O. 59 r.23 Rules of Court 2012. Df failed to proved other claims against Plf.

Scale of costs for trial in the Subordinate Courts (O. 59 r. 23)

Subject to the provisions hereunder, upon the conclusion and determination of any trial in the Subordinate Courts, the party entitled to costs shall, unless the Court otherwise orders, be paid fixed costs in accordance with the following scale: Judgment Sum Suing/ Defending Advocacy … Exceeds RM16,000 but not RM17,000 RM560 RM2,145 … D) Conclusion [21] Due to the above reasons, I dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim with no order as to cost. [22] As for the counter claim by the Defendant, the court allowed prayer (a) for breach of tenancy agreement for amount of RM9100 with cost of RM2,145 as provided under O. 59 r.23 Rules of Court 2012. [23] Defendant failed to prove other claims against Plaintiff. However, I am humbly guided by the decision of the High Court. Dated: 29 JULY 2026 ..........................T.T............................ ZUR AZUREEN BINTI ZAINALKEFLI MAGISTRATE MAGISTRATE COURT 5 SHAH ALAM SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN For the Plaintiff-ZUL VIJAY CHANDER & ASSOC. (KLANG) For the Defendant-Ms Inderjit Kaur A/P Jagit Singh