Rajasekaran A/L Soundarapandy v P. Thiagarajan A/L Pavadai (BL-22NCvC-5-03/2022)

Sebelum Plaintif menduduki dan/atau menyewa premis tersebut, sekitar tahun 2010, Plaintif dan Defendan telah bersetuju secara verbal dimana Defendan akan menyerahkan cek berjumlah RM 230,000.00 kepada Plaintif, dan seterusnya Defendan akan menguruskan pembelian premis tersebut dari pemilik terdahulu premis tersebut.

Namun begitu, Plaintif menolak tawaran tersebut dan berbincang semula dengan Defendan. Plaintif dan Defendan telah bersetuju untuk menukarkan nama milikan premis tersebut keatas nama Defendan tetapi Defendan telah berjanji untuk memindah milik premis tersebut keatas nama Plaintif selepas 10 tahun dari tarikh pembelian premis tersebut atas sebab bahawa Defendan sememangnya berniat untuk membeli rumah tersebut untuk Plaintif.

Defendan pada setiap masa dan ketika tidak pernah meminta Plaintif untuk membayar apa-apa bayaran kepada Defendan sepanjang Plaintif menduduki dam/atau menghuni premis tersebut. Namun begitu, atas budi bicara Plaintif sendiri, Plaintif telah membayar sebanyak RM 500.00 kepada Defendan setiap bulan sebagai sagu hati kepada Defendan.Secara ringkas, terma-terma perjanjian lisan antara Plaintif dan Defendan adalah seperti berikut:- a) Defendan mendaftar premis tersebut di atas nama Defendan dahulu berikutan Plaintif menolak tawaran Defendan; b) Plaintif dibenarkan menghuni dan/atau menduduki premis tersebut seperti rumah Plaintif sendiri; c) Tiada sebarang jumlah bayaran sewa yang ditetapkan dan dikenakan kepada Plaintif oleh Defendan; d) Defendan akan memindahmilik premis tersebut keatas nama Plaintif selepas 10 tahun dari tarikh pembelian dari tarikh pembelian premis tersebut.

Hubungan antara Plaintif dan Defendan pasda mulanya adalah suatu hubungan yang baik dan rapat seperti berikut:- ………….. i) Selain daripada fakta-fakta yang diplidkan diatas, Plaintif turut memplidkan bahawa Plaintif telah mula mengenali Defendan sejak tahun 1981 dan bermula sejak tahun 2000 Defendan seringkali meminta Plaintif untuk memandu kereta Defendan sebagai seorang pemandu (driver). Bayaran yang diberi oleh Defendan kepada Plaintif adalah tidak tetap yang mana kadang-kadang langsung tidak dibayar atau sekiranya dibayar hanyalah RM 50.00. j) Namun begitu, sejak Plaintif menduduki dan/atau menghuni premis tersebut pada tahun 2010, Defendan telah setiap hari meminta Plaintif untuk menjadi pemandu Defendan. Defendan telah menggunakan tenaga Plaintif tanpa mengira waktu dan tiada waktu tetap termasuk untuk membawa Defendan ke luar kawasan(outstation) di seluruh Malaysia. k) Defendan juga seringkali menggunakan Plaintif untuk menjadi pengutip wang pinjaman yang dipinjam oleh peniaga-peniaga dan ahli-ahli politik seperti Dato’Subramaniam bekas Timbalan Menteri & Timbalan l) Berikutan Plaintif banyak mengenali ahli-ahli politik dan orang kenamaan kerana Plaintif bekas Pegawai Penerangan,Kementerian Penerangan Malaysia, Defendan telah menggunakan Plaintif untuk mengenalkan Defendan kepada ahli politik dan orang kenamaan di Malaysia. m) Plaintif juga sering digunakan oleh Defendan untuk membantu Defendan mendapatkan kontrak perniagaan pasir daripada Kerajaan Negeri Selangor. Defendan juga telah berjanji kepada Plaintif bahawa sekiranya Plaintif berjaya mendapatkan kontrak perniagaan pasir tersebut untuk Defendan, Plaintif akan diberikan elaun sebanyak RM 15,000.00. Namun, begitu, setelah pemerolehan kontrak perniagaan pasir tersebut, Defendan telah memungkiri janji untuk membayar elaun sebanyak RM 15,000.00 tersebut kepada Plaintif.

Pada 0.5.10.2021 jam lebih kurang 11.40 pagi, Defendan dan/atau agen-agennya dan/atau wakil-wakilnya telah memecah masuki premis tersebut tanpa kebenaran Plaintif selaku penghuni di premis tersebut pada ketika itu. Pada ketika itu juga, penyakit Covid 19 sedang berleluasa dan Defendan dan/atau agen-agennya dan/atau wakil-wakilnya tidak memakai topeng muka.

Defendan sehingga ke hari ini masih gagal, enggan dan/ atau abai untuk memindah milik premis tersebut kepada Plaintif sejak dari tahun 2020 sehingga kini walaupun Defendan telah berjanji untuk memindah milik premis tersebut selepas 10 tahun dari tarikh pembelian premis tersebut. [3] The rule and procedure for amendment of pleadings is settled. Under O. 20 r.5 (1) Rules Of Court 2012,”…… the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow the plaintiff to amend his writ, or any party to amend his pleading, on such terms as to costs or otherwise as may be just and in such a manner, if any , as it may direct. (emphasis by Court). [4] However this discretion is subject to certain criteria or circumstances as laid out in Yamaha Motor Co Ltd v Yamaha Malaysia Sdn Bhd & Ors [1983] 1 MLJ 213 and Hong Leong Finance Bhd v Low Thiam Hoe and another appeal [2016] 1 MLJ 301. [5] In Yamaha Motor Co Ltd (supra), Federal Court laid criteria to be considered before the court allow such amendment as to ensure no injustice cause to the other parties. The 3 basic questions that the court should asked itself before allowing the amendment is :-

whether the application was bona fide ;

whether the prejudice caused to the other side can be compensated by costs; and

whether the amendments would not in effect turn the suit from one character into a suit of another and inconsistent character. [6] The Defendant is the registered owner of the land on which is erected a house known as 24, Jalan Kiara 1/KS5, Kiara, Bandar Botanik, 41200 Klang, Selangor (“property”). The Plaintiff had been residing in this property rent free since 2005 but since Ovtober 2017, Plaintiff started paying monthly rental RM 500.00. On 13.4.2021, the Defendant issued a notice to the Plaintiff to vacate the property. On 5.4.2021, the Plaintiff replied the said notice confirming that he would vacate the property by 28.9.2021 and the Plaintiff had stopped paying the rental to the Defendant after Mac 2021. [7] On 5.10.2021, the Defendant together with his contractor went to the property for cleaning and repair works. However, the Plaintiff called the police accusing the Defendant of breaking in. The Defendant then lodged a police report against the Plaintiff for failing to vacate the property after notice to vacate was issued and therefore remaining there as a trespasser. On 24.11.2021, the Plaintiff’s solicitor issued a letter of demand seeking the Defendant for an apology for breaking in into the property, compensation and transfer of the house to the Plaintiff. The Defendant refused to comply with these demands and thereupon the Plaintiff filed this suit against the Defendant. However, upon the application of the Defendant, the High Court struck out this suit and the Plaintiff filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal. On 30.9.2022, the Court of Appeal allowed the Plaintiff’s appeal and hence this suit was remitted back to this court. Plaintiff then filed an application (Enclosure 32) to amend the statement of claim. [8] The Defendant’s submits that the proposed amendments are to add certain allegations (which is denied by the Plaintiff). The Defendant opposed to the proposed addition to paragraph 7,9 and the insertion of new para 23. [9] The original paragraph 7 had no mention of any oral nor written agreement between parties that the property will be transferred to the Plaintiff after 10 years of its purchase. The Plaintiff plead that the Defendant offered to the Plaintiff to register the property under the Plaintiff’s name which he refused. It is clear by inserting the new facts that the Defendant promised to transfer the property to the Plaintiff after 10 years of its purchase, clearly introduced a new cause of action that there is breach of an alleged oral agreement. This fact is just not known now to the Plaintiff, since the parties have been communicating the moment Plaintiff stays in that property. It could have been pleaded earlier, but Plaintiff chose not to do so and waited almost a year later to file this application to amend and add this new fact to paragraph 7, this shows lack of bona fide on part of the Plaintiff. [10] It goes the same to paragraph 9 and 23, these new facts were facts already known to parties. The Plaintiff had been staying in the said property from day one till the day the Defendant asked him to vacate. If the Defendant had intended the Plaintiff to treat the property as his own, then why the issue of rent comes into the picture. [11] The discretion whether to allow the said application to amend the defence by the Defendant lie solely in the hands of this court (refer to Hong Leong Finance and O. 20 rule 5(1). In exercising its discretion this court will look at the criteria that was laid down in Yamaha Motor and Hong Leong Finance Bhd). [12] O. 20 rule 5 ROC 2012, allows any amendment to the pleading be done at any stage of the proceeding as to ensure all issues be rightfully put before the court so that no injustice cause to any party. Be as it may, does it mean the applicant can take for granted or choose as to their convenient to file the application to amend and the court by virtue of O.20 rule 5 ROC 2012 as they feel convenience to do so. This trigger the Federal Court in Hong Leong Bhd. to make the applicant who delay in making the amendment application to explain the delay. The Plaintiff here, did not have such an explanation for the delay. Justification of any delay if it is unavoidable must commensurate the issue of bona fide, justice and able to rebut the issue of tactical manoeuvre raised by the other party. [13] In conclusion, based on the above reasons, the application by the Plaintiffs to amend the statement of claim as to paragraph 7, 9 and 23 is dismissed with cost of RM3,000.00. In so far as the other additions, since Defendant did not oppose them, this Court allowed these amendments. Dated 18 March 2024 -sgd- (NORLIZA BINTI OTHMAN) HIGH COURT JUDGE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA, KLANG PLAINTIFF’S SOLICITOR : M Manoharan & Co. C-5-5, Wisma Goshen Plaza Pantai Bharu, Persiaran Pantai Baharu, Bangsar, 59200 Kuala Lumpur DEFENDANT’S SOLICITOR : Arun Kasi & Co. Suite 01-09, 1st Floor, Menara TKSS, No. 206, Jalan Segambut, 51200 Kuala Lumpur