Twt Builders Sdn Bhd v Mine Biomass Sdn Bhd (CA-B52NCvC-2-02/2024)

sewa tertunggak dalam jumlah RM244,837.41 setakat Disember 2023;

sewa untuk tempoh belum tamat berjumlah RM66,000.00 bagi Januari dan Februari 2024 masing-masing;

perintah bahawa Penyewaan Ke-2 telah ditamatkan secara baik dan sah oleh Plaintif;

perintah supaya Defendan membayar kepada Plaintif semua jumlah yang didapati terhutang dan perlu dibayar oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini di bawah Penyewaan Ke-2;

ganti rugi yang timbul kerana pelanggaran Penyewaan Ke-2;

ganti rugi untuk pencerobohan;

ganti rugi am yang akan dinilai oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini;

perintah untuk pemilikan kosong Premis tersebut;

perintah supaya Defendan membayar sewa dua kali ganda dari 28.02.2024 sehingga pemilikan diserahkan;

faedah pada kadar 5% setahun ke atas semua jumlah yang terhutang dan terhutang dari Jun 2023 sehingga realisasi penuh;

kos; dan

apa-apa relif lanjutan atau lain-lain relif yang difikirkan adil dan sesuai oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini dalam keadaan tindakan ini. PEMBELAAN DEFENDAN [1] Premis tersebut merupakan satu tingkat berstruktur besi keluli dengan anggaran 45,000 kaki persegi ruang binaan dengan sedikit baki tanah kosong. Tanah tersebut merupakan sebidang tanah pertanian dengan keluasan llebihkurang 4 ekar. Oleh itu penerangan Plaintif adalah mengelirukan dan berniat jahat (mischievious). [2] Plaintif sebagai tuantanah telah memberikan beberapa jaminan secara lisan mengenai keadaan Gudang tersebut termasuk memperbaiki beberapa kecacatan dan/atau kerosakan. Selain itu, Plaintif juga berjanji untuk menyediakan dokumen-dokumen berkaitan untuk Defendan memperolehi lessen perniagaan dan insurans. [3] Defendan telah menyewa Gudang tersebut semasa PKP. Pengarah Defendan adalah warganegara Singapura. Beliau telah menyewa premis tersebut berdasarkan kepercayaan kepada penyataan Plaintif tanpa ada peluang untuk menjalankan pemeriksaan atau memperoleh dokumen untuk mengesahkan kesesuaian Gudang tersebut. [4] Sebelum memasuki premis tersebut, Plaintif telah berjanji akan memperbaiki kerosakan dan membersihkan segala halangan yanga da tetapi selepas Defendan masuk menyewa, Plaintif masih gagal berbuat demikian. [5] Sehingga PKP tamat, Plaintif telah gagal membuat pembaikan dan hanya membersihkan batu campur dan Kawasan keliling apabila Defendan menahan bayaran sewa. [6] Defendan telah bersetuju untuk memperbaharui perjanjian penyewaan dari 1/3/2022 hingga 29/3/2024 (Perjanjian Kedua). Defendan telah bercadang untuk meningkatkan perlindungan isnurans kebakaran disebabkan kenaikan nilai inventori serta keperluan insurans pelanggan/klien Defendan sendiri. Oleh demikian, Defendan telah menghubungi pihak insurans bagi tujuan itu. [7] Syarikat insurans telah meminta beberapa dokumen bagi tujuan tersebut termasuk Sijil Kelayakan (Certificate of Fitness), Perakuan Bomba, susun atur premis dan hakmilik tanah. [8] Defendan telah meminta dokumen-dokumen tersebut daripada Plaintif sejak April 2023 tetapi Plaintif masih enggan membekalkan dokumen-dokumen tersebut. [9] Plaintif telah memperdayakan Defendan dengan pelbagai alasan dan menyebabkan Defendan membazir masa selama 6 bulan menunggu Plaintif membekalkan dokumen-dokumen berkenaan. [10] Ini telah menyebabkan Defendan menahan wang sewa dan hanya pada 23/10/2023, Plaintif telah membekalkan dokumen sesalinan hakmilik tanah dan susun atur premis tersebut melalui email. Melalui email bertarikh 1/11/2023, Plaintif juga mengakui tidak pernah memperoleh Sijil Kelayan dan Sijil Bomba. Melalui email bertarikh 2/11/2023 pula, Plaintif memaklumkan bahawa bangunan tersebut tidak mempunyai kelulusan pelan bangunan. Oleh itu, Gudang itu adalah bangunan yang menyalahi undang-undang/haram. [11] Berdasarkan Hakmilik tanah pula, Defendan mendapati bahawa premis tersebut adalah terletak atas tanah pertanian dengan syarat untuk kegunaan tanaman getah sahaja. Oleh itu, Defendan dapati penggunaan Gudang tersebut merupakan satu perlanggaran terhadap syarat tersirat dan syarat nyata yang tertulis dalam geran tersebut. [12] Plaintif telah memperdayakan Defendan dengan memberitahu bahawa Gudang tersebut/premis tersebut adaah dibina mematuhi undang-undang. Plaintif telah membuat membuat representasi secara penipuan dan dengan kesedaran bahawa ia adalah tidak benar, palsu dan/atau cuai tanpa mengambilkira samada penyataan itu benar atau tidak. [13] Defendan juga menyatakan bahawa merujuk kepada Perjanjian Pertama dan Perjanjian Kedua, ia merupakan syarat tersirat bahawa premis tersebut di bina mengikut undang-undang dan peraturan yang relevan. [14] Bersandarkan penyataan, jaminan dan syarat yang didorong oleh Plaintif Defendan dengan suci hati dan amanah telah menandatangani kedua-dua perjanjian tersebut. [15] Defendan menegaskan bahawa sekiranya Defendan tahu, Defendan tidak akan menyewa premis tersebut. [16] Oleh demikian, Plaintif diestopkan dari menuntut pembayaran sewa bagi tempoh yang masih belum berbayar iaitu bagi Januari dan Februari daripada Defendan. [17] Surat peguamcara Plaintif bertarikh 16/1/2024 untuk penamatan penyewaan dan serahan milikan kosong adalah defektif, tidak sah dan tidak munasabah kerana tempoh notis tersebut adalah tidak mencukupi. [18] Defendan telah melalui peguamcara memohon masa 2 bulan untuk pengosongan tetapi telah ditolak oleh Plaintif. Melalui notis tersebut, Defendan hanya mempunyai masa 10 hari untuk mengosongkan premis tersebut yang penuh dengan barangan dan peralatan dan dibuat dengan niat jahat dan tidak munasabah. [19] Defendan telah mengosongkan premis tersebut pada 29/2/2024. Oleh itu tuntutan Plaintif untuk pencerobohan dan tuntutan bayaran sewa 2 kali ganda adalah tidak berasas. [20] Defendan menyatakan bahawa perjanjian pertama dan perjanjian kedua adalah tidak sah dan menyalahi undang-undang. Oleh itu, Plaintif tidak berhak menuntut dalam tindakan ini. TUNTUTAN BALAS DEFENDAN [1] Kegagalan Plaintif mendapatkan kelulusan yang relevan bagi premis tersebut telah menimbulkan isu yang serius bagi keselamatan pekerja-pekerja Defendan dan menjejaskan perniagaannya. [2] Walaupun perjanjian tidak sah, Plaintif masih tidak mengambil tindakan untuk menghalalkannya dan masih menuntut bayaran sewa sejak Jun 2023. Plaintif turut memaksa Defendan untuk mengosongkan premis tersebut dan mengeluarkan barang dalam masa yang tidak munasabah. [3] Defendan hanya mendapat tahu bahawa premis tersebut menyalahi undang-undang pada atau sekotar Oktober atau November 2023. [4] Plaintif telah memungut sewa secara tidak sah mulai tahun 2020 dengan jumlah besar RM1,257,000.00 yang merupakan jumlah yang dibayara oleh Defendan kepada Plaintif sejak 1/3/2020 hingga kini. [5] Oleh itu, Defendan menuntut balas daripada Plaintif seperti berikut: a) Perisytiharan bahawa Perjanjian Penyewaan bertarikh 21/3/2020 adalah menyalahi undang-undang dan tidak sah (is illegal and/or void); b) Perisytiharan bahawa Perjanjian Penyewaan bertarikh 17/12/2022 adalah menyalahi undang-undang dan tidak sah (is illegal and/or void); c) Perintah untuk Plaintif membayar dan mengembalikan wang berjumlah RM1,257,000.00 kepada Defendan sebagai pembayaran sewaan dan/atau deposit yang dikutip oleh Plaintif sejak tahun 2020; d) Perintah untuk mengembalikan deposit sekuriti sebanyak RM99,000.00 kepada Defendan; e) Kos pemindahan, pengalihan dan pengosongan cangkang sawit (palm kernel shell) dan loji serta peralatan dari premis tersebut; f) Gantirgi am yang akan ditaksirkan; g) Faedah pada kadar 5% setahun mulai tarikh 1/3/2020 hingga penyelesaian akhir dan penuh; h) kos; dan i) Lain-lain perintah dan/atau relif yang difikirkan suaimanfaat oleh Mahkamah yang Mulia ini. KEPUTUSAN DAN DAPATAN MAHKAMAH [1] Tindakan ini telah didengar di Mahkamah dengan 3 saksi memberi keterangan sebagaimana berikut: SP1 – Kelvin Kuan Weng Roc SD1 – Tan Teo Song SD2 – Nor Qasdina Binti Hamdan @ Mohd Zin. [2] Setelah meneliti Ikatan Pliding, keterangan saksi-saksi, eksibit-eksibit, hujahan dan otoriti kesemua pihak, atas imbangan kebarangkalian, Mahkamah: a) Menolak tuntutan Plaintif sebagaimana diperenggan 10 Penyataan Tuntutan b) Membenarkan tuntutan balas Defendan sebagaimana diperenggan 36 (a), (b), untuk item (c) dan (d) secara global berjumlah RM1,000,000.00, (e) kos pemindahan, pengalihan dan pengosongan cangkang sawit (palm kernel shell) dan loji serta peralatan dari premis tersebut hendaklah ditanggung oleh Defendan sendiri dan Defendan perlu mengosongkan premis tersebut dalam tempoh 14 hari dari tarikh perintah ini, (g) faedah pada kadar 5% setahun atas jumlah penghakiman dari tarikh penghakiman hingga penyelesaian penuh dan (h) untuk kos. [3] Pada peringkat ini, beban untuk membuktikan tuntutan dan/atau tuntutan balas tersebut terletak pada bahu pihak yang memplidkan fakta dan isu terbabit. Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes SAMPO MATERIALS (M) SDN BHD v. TENAGA NASIONAL BHD, COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA [2015] 9 CLJ 902, Mahkamah telah memutuskan sebagaimana berikut: JUDGMENT Alizatul Khair Osman JCA: [49] Firstly, it is trite that under s. 101 and s. 102 of the Evidence Act 1950, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove its case. [50] By way of emphasis and for ease of reference we reproduce below ss. 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act 1950:

Burden of proof

Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability, dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.

When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.

On whom burden of proof lies The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. [51] The case of Selvaduray v. Chinniah [1939] CLJU 107; [1939] 1 LNS 107; [1939] 8 MLJ FMSR 253 provides a classic illustration of this principle. As propounded by Terrell Ag CJ: The burden of proof under section 102 of the Evidence Enactment is upon the person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side, and accordingly the plaintiff must establish his case. If he fails to do so, it will not avail him to turn around and say that the defendant has not established his. (emphasis added) [4] Mahkamah juga merujuk keputusan dalam kes Mahkamah Rayuan HO HUP CONSTRUCTION COMPANY BERHAD V. WOO THIN CHONG [2018] 2 MLRA 321 yang memutuskan seperti berikut: "[43] It was trite that while it was true that the overall burden of proving a civil claim on a balance of probabilities was on the party bringing the action (the plaintiff), a party who alleged or relied upon a particular fact had the onus or responsibility to establish on evidence the existence of that fact.” [5] Bagi membuktikan kes Plaintif, pihak Plaintif telah memanggil satu-satunya saksi bagi pihak mereka iaitu SP1. SP1 adalah individu yang mempunyai pengetahuan penuh dan secara peribadi berhubung tuntutan ini bagi pihak Plaintif. Mahkamah merujuk keterangan berikut: Pemeriksaan Balas SP1 “PSP: Mr Kelvin, how long have you worked in the Plaintiff company? KELVIN: 11 years. PSP: And just now you said you were the main person in charge for the Plaintiff company for this first and second tenancy with the Defendant, right? [6] Dalam keterangan SP1, SP1 ingin menekankan bahawa fakta berhubung status tanah (tanah pertanian, tiada Sijil Layak Menduduki (CF) adalah dalam pengetahuan Defendan sejak dari awal perbincangan bagi perjanjian penyewaan Pertama dibuat. Oleh itu, SP1 telah mengemukakan satu rakaman perbualan antara beliau dengan satu individu dalam telefon bimbit (Voice Recording). [7] Rakaman telefon (voice Recording) ini telah membangkitkan isu dan bantahan oleh pihak Defendan. Pada peringkat awalnya, setelah mendengar hujahan kedua-dua pihak pada peringkat awal dan Plaintif teleh mengemukakan telefon bimbit yang berkaitan, Mahkamah membenarkan “voice recording” tersebut ditandakan eksibit P1 tertakluk kepada pemeriksaan Balas oleh Defendan. [8] Hujahan Plaintif dan Defendan pada peringkat awal tersebut adalah sebagaimana berikut: Hujahan Plaintif: IAM:The transcription is in fact, attached to his witness statement. Because it's an audio recording, and he's giving oral evidence to the fact that he had the conversation with this Mr Yan. I will also submit, Puan Hakim, that this, the issues that arise in this case, the primary issue is whether or not the Defendant knew of the status of the land and the warehouse prior to entering into the tenancy. And lastly, Puan Hakim, my witness has produced the recording device for inspection by this Court to prove the authenticity of the recording. Now, on the device and on the recording is Mr Kelvin and Mr Yan. Hujahan Balas Defendan: PSP: We would still want to place our objection, because, again, it's not in the bundle and, in fact, the Plaintiff, they did not comply with Court’s directions in the pre-trial case management stage and this recording, you know, is only tendered today, and it's not pleaded as well. So, parties, I mean, the law says parties are bound by the pleadings, and this is not in the pleadings and for that reasons, this audio recording cannot be relied upon. JUDGE Alright. So, for the time being, I don't mark the witness yet So, maybe during the cross and the end of SP1, I will make a ruling for this exhibit, ok. [9] Setelah mendengar keseluruhan pemeriksaan Balas dan membuat bandingan dengan rakaman dan rekod yang ada dalam telefon bimbit SP1, Mahkamah telah memutuskan bahawa “Voice Recording” tersebut tidak boleh ditandakan sebagai eksibit. Oleh itu, P1 telah ditukar semula kepada ID1. [10] Alasan Mahkamah adalah sebagaimana berikut:

Isu rakaman telefon (voice recording) dan transkrip – ditolak atas sebab: a. hanya satu telefon dikemukakan ke Mahkamah. SP1 memberi keterangan beliau merekodkan perbualan melalui 2 telefon. Hanya satu telefon yang dibawa dan ditunjukkan ke Mahkamah. Butiran telefon bimbit tersebut juga tidak dapat dipastikan. Mahkamah merujuk keterangan Pemeriksaan Balas SP1 sebagaimana di bawah: “PSP: How was this recorded? KELVIN: I have two phones. One of the phones I using for the calling to the Mr Yan. Then open the loudspeaker, then we record over there. Another phone we record. PSP: One you use to call Mr Yan, the other one you use to record? PSP: So today, the one you tendered before the Court, which phone is that? KELVIN: The recording phone.” b. Pihak-pihak tidak ada peluang untuk mengesahkan kesahihan isi kandungan, tarikh, nombor panggilan, identity pihak-pihak dalam perbualan serta ketepatan perbualan yang dikatakan wujud di dalamnya. Tiada butiran dan data tersebut ditunjukkan ke Mahkamah. Mahkamah merujuk keterangan Pemeriksaan Balas SP1 sebagaimana berikut: “PSP: Was there anyone else at the time beside you who can witness your phone call? KELVIN: No. PSP: I know, but you say you called Mr Will, right? So, how do you prove that? How? KELVIN: My phone has record the contact and the name. PSP: But the audio recording doesn't say that it's him. How can you prove that? We do not know whether the other person maybe is another guy who is not Will. KELVIN: Just now we already sumpah that we will talk to the truth. Whatever we talk now is the truth.” c. Plaintif gagal memanggil Mr Will yang dikatakan satu pihak lagi dalam perbualan tersebut bagi menyokong keterangan ini. Ada juga penyataan SP1 bahawa satu pihak lagi adalah Mr Will atau Mr Tan. Ini juga tidak dapat disahkan oleh Plaintif selain daripada keterangannya sendiri. Pemeriksaan Balas SP1 “PSP Since you say the other person on the line is so-called Mr Will or Mr Yan, right? PSP: Or just now you mentioned he's the person in charge for the Defendant. PSP: How can you prove it's him, Mr Will? How KELVIN The first day I deal with this person in charge, he mentioned the name is Mr Will, but the surname is Mr Yan. PSP: I know, but you say you called Mr Will, right? So, how do you prove that? How? KELVIN: My phone has record the contact and the name. PSP: But the audio recording doesn't say that it's him.” d. Pembuat transkrip (maker) iaitu peguamcara Plaintif tidak dipanggil ke Mahkamah untuk memberi keterangan. INi penting untuk mengesahkan setiap butiran yang ditranskrip adalah datangnya dari telefon yang dikatakan digunakan oleh SP1 dalam merekod perbualan dan ia dikendalikan dengan baik tanpa diusik (tempering evidence). Mahkamah merujuk keterangan di bawah: “PSP: And who prepared the transcript? KELVIN: My lawyer. PSP: So, your lawyer prepared the transcript and why that person who prepared the transcript is not called as witness? To testify that the transcript was properly done? KELVIN: Sorry? PSP: Ok, I rephrase my question. So, the person who prepared the transcript, why is that person not called to testify in Court to prove that the transcript was done properly? KELVIN: Because the transcript is prepared by my lawyer, who prepared it.” e. tiada Sijil di bawah seksyen 90A Akta Keterangan di kemukakan f. Plaintif sepatutnya membekalkan bukti ini – rakaman, transkrip, Sijil Seksyen 90A semasa PTCM dan ia dijadikan sebahagian dokumen yang sepatutnya diklasifikasikan dan bukan semata transkrip melalui Penyataan Saksi SP1 pada tarikh perbicaraan. Saksi yang dikatakan Mr Will adalah saksi penting bagi mengesahkan isu samada Defendan maklum tentang status hartanah tersebut dari awal. g. Saksi-saksi lain yang boleh mengesahkan individu yang dikatakan Mr Will dalam perbualan dan juga status hartanah telah dimaklumkan dan dipersetujui oleh Defendan juga tidak dipanggil ke Mahkamah. [11] Jika sekiranya (secara alternative) “Voice Recording” tersebut diterima Mahkamah, adakah Plaintif telah berjaya membuktikan bahawa pihak Defendan mempunyai pengetahuan dari awal keadaan premis yang akan disewa adalah “as-is-where-is basis”? [12] Jika dirujuk keterangan SP1, pihak yang ada dalam perbualan “Voice recording” tersebut adalah Mr will atau Mr Yan. SP1 hanya tahu penama itu adalah pekerja Defendan. Dalam masa yang sama, SP1 tahu Mr Tan adalah pengarah syarikat Defendan dan bertanggungjawab membuat keputusan bagi pihak Defendan. Ini adalah melalui keterangan Pemeriksaan Balas SP1 seperti berikut: “PSP: Yes. And so, you know Mr Tan, the so-called director for the Defendant, right? PSP: Mr Tan Teo Song, right? PSP: That's the person, right. Now, Mr Tan is the director, so would you agree that he's the main decision maker for the Defendant? PSP: So, would you also agree that the decisions made by Mr Tan shall also be binding on the Defendant company, right? [13] Oleh demikian, SP1 mengakui peranan Mr Tan dalam hal ini. SP1 memberi keterangan bahawa Mr Yan ada pergi bersama SP1 ke premis tersebut dan telah melihat premis sebelum Perjanjian Pertama ditandatangan. Walaubagaimanapun, apa yang dibincangkan dan dipersetujui pada ketika itu di premis tersebut tidak dapat diterangkan dengan jelas dan disokong oleh saksi atau keterangan lain. [14] Mr Yan di sini tidak pernah dipanggil oleh mana-mana pihak sebagai saksi. Mahkamah merujuk keterangan Pemeriksaan Balas SP1 di bawah: “KELVIN: Mr Yan is an ex-staff from person in charge in Kuantan, Biomass. IAM: Biomass? KELVIN: Yes, Mine Biomass. IAM: Did you know his position at that time? KELVIN: Yes, I know the person in charge is the manager on the site. IAM: And did you and him go and physically see the premises? Did he go with you to see the premises? KELVIN: Yes, he go with me to see the premises.” [15] Saksi Defendan memberi keterangan bahawa ada penama Mr Yan atau Mr Will dalam syarikat Defendan. Mr Yan @ Mr Will sudah tidak lagi bekerja di syarikat Defendan pada ketika kes berjalan. Mahkamah merujuk keterangan SD1 seperti berikut: “IAM: And this is Mr Yan, or Will as you know him? You have to answer in the microphone. If not, we cannot capture. TAN: Ok. IAM: Ok? Yes? IAM: So, you call him Will? TAN: That was his common name IAM: But this is his full name, Yan Chun Fei? TAN: Correct. IAM: And he was the manager? IAM: Was he the only manager at that time? TAN: There is an assistant manager. IAM: And what was his or her name? TAN: Adil.” [16] Secara asasnya, beban adalah terletak kepada Plaintif untuk membuktikan apa yang didakwa telah dibincangkan dan dipersetujui antara SP1 dengan Mr Yan @ Mr. Will. Mr Yan @ Mr Will atau saksi lain tidak dipanggil untuk memberi keterangan di Mahkamah menyokong keterangan SP1. Video Recording pula menjadi isu dalam hal ini. [17] Ini penting kerana pihak Defendan menafikan dakwaan Plaintif. Keterangan SD1 pula bertentangan dengan keterangan SP1. Secara atas imbangan kebarangkalian, Mahkamah mendapati versi Defendan adalah lebih munasabah. Ini kerana, SP1 tahu SD1 adalah pengarah syarikat dan SD1 tidak berada di Malaysia (khususnya di Kuantan) pada masa material. Mahkamah merujuk keterangan Pemeriksaan Balas SD1 seperti di bawah: “IAM: Will briefed you about this piece of land before you entered and signed this agreement. Am I right? TAN:Yes. He did a summary. IAM: Don’t worry, Mr Tan. But what I want to confirm is that you were not in the country at that time. As a result of which, you relied on Will to brief you on this piece of land. TAN: Correct.” [18] Semasa Perjanjian Penyewaan pertama dimasuki, ia adalah dalam tempoh PKP @ Covid-19. SD1 sebagai pengarah tidak dapat datang ke Kuantan untuk melihat sendiri tapak yang akan di sewa. [19] SD1 bergantung kepada perbincangan antara SP1 dan Mr Yen @ Mr Will. Mr Yen @ Mr Will pula telah memberi penerangan bersama gambar. Dokumen-dokumen lain pada masa ini tidak dibekalkan. Mahkamah merujuk keterangan Pemeriksaan Balas SD1 seperti berikut: “IAM: Alright. Now, so, you say that you were briefed by Will and Will had, I’m instructed Will had gone to see the land with Mr Kelvin prior to enteringinto this Tenancy Agreement. Can you confirm whether you have knowledge of this or not? IAM: So, they did go, and they did go and physically view the property? IAM: And Mr Will or Will went and briefed you about it? And said it was suitable, right? IAM: Now, did Will give you some photographs of the property? IAM: Yes? And you saw it and agreed that it was suitable for your purposes? [20] Defendan setuju menyewa tapak Gudang tersebut kerana dari “ penerangan yang ada dan juga gambar, ia sesuai. Ini selari dengan terma “as-is-where-is basis” sebagaimana dinyatakan kedua-dua pihak. Ini adalah selari dengan keterangan semasa Pemeriksaan Balas SD1 seperti berikut: “IAM: Page 9, sub clause (e), Use. Now, the first part of it, I want to refer you to the fifth line from the bottom, where it starts with “The landlord does not expressly or impliedly warrant that the demised premises are now or will remain suitable for all or any of the purposes of use by the tenant and the tenant takes the demised premises on an As is Where is basis and all warranties if any, as to the suitability of the demised premises implied by law or hereby expressly excluded to the fullest extent possible.” Ok? Now, this is part of the agreement that you signed which says that it is on an As is and Where is basis. Am I right? IAM: And this is premised on the fact that there was a physical inspection of the premises. IAM: And it was an internal decision by the Defendant to execute this agreement and found the land suitable, correct? That’s what it says in this agreement. TAN: Yes. Based on this document, yes.” Pemeriksaan Semula SD1 “PSP: Ok. So I ask again, so, earlier it was said that Will brief you. Brief you before the entering of the first tenancy agreement. Will he brief you. So what was the briefing? What was the content? TAN: Normally, we will look for warehouse, he will go and visit some warehouse is available, take photo, get details. And then he will send it to me, right. And then we’ll go through it, if I have question, I’ll ask him. How big, how far the access road. When during loading, when you have something like 20, 30 lorries come in, is the road access adequate, and things like that. Yes. And also that, we also, and in fact the whole operation, I always tell them that we have to comply to the law because the partner at that time, the Japanese partner is a listed company so I need to comply. And as you know, in the listed company, compliance is of prime importance. PSP: In the briefing, the content, was there any land title? TAN: No, there was no title, only have – PSP: So just now you mentioned Will give you the photos. So, in other words, the briefing was only on – TAN: Yes. Based on photos. [21] Isu “sesuai” dan “mematuhi kehendak undang-undang” adalah 2 perkara berbeza. Ia sesuai untuk dijadikan tempat menyimpan “kernel sawit” Defendan kerana dia adalah sebuah gudang yang memenuhi keperluan Defendan dalam urusannya. Walaupun begitu, isu samada status tanah, status bangunan itu selamat, mempunyai Sijil Layak Menduduki (CF), Sijil Bomba dan sebagainya adalah isu berbeza. Ini semua diluar pengetahuan SD1. Mahkamah merujuk keterangan berikut: Pemeriksaan Balas SD1 “IAM: Now, Mr Tan, I’m very sure you know what this case is about, right? It all hinges on what you say and what the Plaintiff says about the status of this land, right? Am I right? Defendant is saying that it is the fact that agriculture land was not said to you. Yes? TAN: This is the part that I’m not aware.” [22] Plaintif memplidkan bahawa Defendan tahu status tanah dan semua isu ini dari awal perbincangan hingga memasuki perjanjian pertama dan seterusnya. Jika tidak, Plaintif pasti tidak akan meneruskan perjanjian sewaan ini. Pada masa itu juga Plaintif menyatakan Defendan dalam keadaan terdesak untuk mendapatkan Gudang penyimpanan kernel sawit mereka. Plaintif bergantung kepada keterangan SP1 dan juga kenyataan bahawa ia telah disampaikan kepada Mr Yan @ Mr Will. Mr Yan @ Mr Will tidak hadir ke Mahkamah memberi keterangan. [23] Defendan pula menafikan bahawa isu ini sudah dalam pengetahuan Defendan sejak awal. Defendan telah memberi keterangan bahawa mereka setuju berdasarkan penerangan dan gambar, Gudang ini sesuai bagi tujuan yang mereka kehendaki. [24] Plaintif kemudiannya menimbulkan persoalan kepada Defendan – Defendan masih bersetuju dengan perjanjian Penyewaan Pertama walaupun sudah tahu segala isu ini. Kenapa tak mintak CF sebelum itu, semasa perjanjian pertama? Defendan perlukan semua dokumen yang dinyatakan untuk memohon insurans. Penyewaan pertama juga menunjukkan tempat Defendan telah mendapatkan insurans. [25] Bagi menjawab soalan ini, Mahkamah merujuk kepada keterangan SD1 yang menerangkan bahawa insurans bagi kernel sawit tersebut telah diperolehi sejak awal dari tempat simpanan lama. Pegawai insurans sebelum ini telah memanjangkan insurans tersebut ke satu tempat baru. Mahkamah menerima penjelasan SD1 sebagaimana keterangan semasa Pemeriksaan Balas SD1 seperti berikut: “IAM: Now, during this entire two years, did you request the Plaintiff to produce the certificate of fitness or BOMBA or the land title? Yes, or no? TAN: During this time, most of the time our operation was suspended because of COVID. TAN: During this time, most of the time our operation was suspended because of COVID. IAM: No, I need a yes or no answer. Yes, or no? TAN: No. IAM: No? Alright. Now, can you confirm that this answer “no” is in respect of both oral and written manners of request? That means you didn’t speak to anybody to produce, nor did you write to them to produce. During this term. TAN: Yes, because it was not required. Because it suspended the operations during COVID. IAM: And you were supposed to get the insurance for the demised premises and your goods, am I right? TAN: Correct. We take out five insurance for premises as well as the – IAM: For the kernels itself, right? IAM: So you did comply with Clause (h) of the first tenancy in obtaining insurance, correct? Pemeriksaan Semula SD1 PSP: Yes. Alright. So earlier you mentioned that during the first tenancy, the Defendant already obtained insurance, right? TAN: Yes. And that is based on our declared value and things like that. PSP: So you are saying that the, how you obtained the fire, it was a fire insurance, right? TAN: Yes. And again, like I said, they based on our decorations that this is a warehouse, they came to inspect the warehouse, they saw that it is a proper warehouse. And of course, they also highlight that you need to have fire extinguisher being placed here and how many units, and things like that. PSP: So they didn’t, the insurance, they did not ask for CF or – TAN: At that point of time, when we first insure, they didn’t ask. It was later on, after Covid, when the palm kernel price nearly doubled. So we need to increase our insurance substantially. That’s where they asked, is that how claims done, can you furnish us some documents regarding your building. And at the same time, the client, right, they, it’s a new client, so they request for such documents. TAN: So, yes. The first tenancy, yes, they did not ask for these documents. Why? Partly, like I said, maybe the insurance value was not that high, and also, we actually move from Gebeng to this TWT warehouse. So this insurance actually insured us from Gebeng. When we are in Gebeng.” [26] Bagi tempoh perjanjian penyewaan Kedua, Defendan perlukan dokumen lengkap untuk mendapatkan perlindungan insurans bagi kernel sawit dan juga bagi memastikan keselamatan pekerja yang lebih ramai di Gudang tersebut. Memandangkan dokumen tidak dibekalkan, Defendan berulangkali memohon daripada Plaintif dan pada masa itulah baru Defendan tahu fakta bahawa status tanah, status bangunan dan lain-lain adalah tidak sebagaimana dijangkakan. Mahkamah merujuk keterangan berikut: Pemeriksaan Semula SD1 “PSP: Second tenancy where you mentioned they did not give you the signed tenancy agreement. PSP: So all this actually transpired in the Bundle B, page 115, the WhatsApp conversation between you and Miza, correct? TAN: Yes. Correct. Yes.” [27] Plaintif menafikan perkara ini. Dalam keterangan yang akan dirujuk, Plaintif ada menyebut “Miza” iaitu kakitangan Plaintif yang berurusan dengan Mr Tan (SD1) berhubung hal ini. Miza tidak dipanggil memberi keterangan di Mahkamah bagi menyokong keterangan Plaintif di sini. Mahkamah memetic semula keterangan semasa Pemeriksaan Balas SP1 sebagaimana di bawah: “PSP: So Mr Kelvin, if Mr Tan is not aware that there is no CF, no BOMBA certificate, no building plan approval, and the land is agricultural land, so meaning Defendant is not aware as well, right? KELVIN: If the first day he's not aware, Mr Tan not aware, they will request on the first day. Not until so many years, until the second tenancy, they're only requesting the CF, the document. Because they are outstanding so many, I think this is the way they came to our company. PSP: If you say the Defendant is aware since day one, then why did they still ask for all these documents? And I refer you to, again, the Bundle B, page 131, at the left column, there is one WhatsApp at 11:00AM, “Sorry to trouble you, can you send me a copy of the land title deed building, certificate of fitness and warehouse approval permit for MBSB’s rental record?” And Mr Kelvin, do you know this WhatsApp conversation is between who? KELVIN: One of my colleagues. PSP: Your colleague, what's the name? KELVIN: Miza (00:39:08) PSP: Amiza(00:39:09). So this WhatsApp conversation is between your colleague Amiza and Mr Tan, correct? KELVIN: Yes PSP: Now, Mr Tan asked this in 20/04/2023, ok. Is that correct? The date of the WhatsApp was actually in page 130, 130 at the right column, at the last part, 20th 25 April. So, then you can see the date. KELVIN: Ok, yes. PSP: And for completeness, I can also refer you to page 148. 148, the first line, sorry, the second line, where you can see the date, 20th 30 April. It's a transcript of the WhatsApp conversation. PSP: Right. So here, like what you have mentioned, so Mr Tan asked for all the documents, is that correct? He asked your colleague Amiza. PSP: And this was in April 20th 3. And after that, Mr Tan followed up, followed up again in his email, in page 52. So, Mr Kelvin, this email was sent by Mr Tan to who? KELVIN: Amiza. PSP: Amiza. And in that same page, it also shows an email called kelvin.kuan@ nobelland.com. (00:41:27) is that your email? KELVIN: Yes, is cc only. PSP: Yes. So that means, why the Defendant still ask all these documents if you say that they already knew from day one? KELVIN: Why? Sorry. PSP: Mr Kelvin, I'm asking that, if you said the Defendant already knew since day one, then why did they ask again in WhatsApp and email from April until May? KELVIN: This is the internal –“ [28] Isu ini sangat penting untuk diperjelaskan. Keterangan SP1 semata tidak membantu kes Plaintif. Ini kerana pada pandangan Mahkamah keterangan SD1 ada disokong oleh keterangan dokumen yang menyangkal pengetahuan Defendan ini sejak awal. Pemeriksaan Balas SP1 “PSP: Now, Mr Kelvin, did the Defendant conduct any site visit or inspection before entering into the tenancy agreement? KELVIN: It will go by Mr Yan, me and Mr Yan because Mr Tan is not in Malaysia. PSP: So, it was done by Mr Yan? PSP So, during the site visit, was the Defendant aware that there was no CF, there was no BOMBA certificate? PSP: So, you say yes. So, how did you know at the time, during the site inspection, how did you know that the Defendant was not aware? KELVIN: That is, I already mentioned to the Mr Yan. The first day that I already mentioned that this land is no CF, this is agriculture land. PSP: So, you mentioned first day. First day means like which? KELVIN: That we meet up that time. PSP: When was it? KELVIN: The date, I can't remember PSP: Can't remember. And how did you inform Mr Yan? KELVIN: Verbally. PSP: And again, there was no one to confirm, right? No one to witness that? PSP: It was only between you and Mr Yan? [29] Mahkamah juga melihat keterangan di bawah semasa Pemeriksaan Balas SP1: “PSP Ok. Let’s assume, even assuming that you had indeed informed Mr Will about the lack of CF, BOMBA certificate, building plan but this does not mean that Mr Tan is aware, right, and therefore Defendant was not aware. Correct? KELVIN: Normally, who is the person to in-charge the company on, they deal the things, that everything will be reported to the director, assume, just now you mentioned that. PSP: Ok. Mr Kelvin, I refer you to document B, the bundle of documents B, page 17, ok. So, the title is “Summary,”, ok, refer to item No.3, then the last line, “Person in-charge,” can you tell who is the person in-charge? KELVIN: Tan Teo Song. PSP: So, this Tan Teo Song is also Mr Tan, the director for the Defendant, right? PSP: So, it is not Will, the person in-charge, based on this? KELVIN:That is the internal, I don’t know. But the first day, the deal, I never know that Mr Tan, I never, Mr Tan never call me before that, everything. Everything is the Mr Yan, Mr Yan would calling me. … PSP: And so I put to you that you have never informed Mr Tan about the lack of CF, building plan approval, BOMBA certificate. Correct? KELVIN: But I mentioned to the staff, I have mentioned to the staff. PSP: But you did not inform Mr Tan directly, right? KELVIN: Mr Tan, he never calling me, I don’t know Mr Tan, the director, when the time we did the tenancy, then I only know that Mr Tan is the director.” [30] Pihak Plaintif sejak awal mempunyai pengetahuan dan membina bangunan Gudang tanpa kebenaran yang sah. Ini disahkan oleh keterangan SP1 sebagaimana berikut: “PSP: Don’t know. And did you know that this building was without CF at the time of, before the tenancy? PSP: Were you aware? [31] Plaintif telah melanggar peraturan dan undang-undang yang ditetapkan apabila telah membina satu bangunan Gudang di tapak tanah berstatus pertanian dan tanpa memohon apa-apa kebenaran dari pihak berkuasa tempatan. Tujuan binaan adalah untuk mendapatkan keuntungan semata-mata tanpa mempertimbangkan keperluan sedia ada. [32] Ini disokong oleh keterangan di pihak Plaintif sendiri apabila pihak Plaintif meletakkan bebanan kepada penyewa untuk membuat perkara yang perlu bagi apa jua tujuan yang perlu. Ini lah yang cuba dibuktikan oleh Plaintif melalui klausa perjanjian sewa yang didrafkan sebagaimana keterangan Pemeriksaan Balas SD1 di bawah: “IAM: Tenancy Agreement. Now, if we go up to the start of this sub clause, it says that “for the use of the land, the tenant shall subject to the relevant authority’s approval and consent, use the demised premise for the storage of palm kernel shells”, right? Now, agree with me Mr Tan, that the storage of the palm kernels was subject to the authority’s approval and consent. It says that in this sub clause. IAM: Yes. Now, if you look at sub clause (g), which is at page 10 of the bundle. Can we go to page 10? Compliance with statutory provisions, Mr Tan. (i), it says that “the tenant shall at its entire own cost and expense apply for, obtain and keep in force at all times, all approvals, consent, authorisations, licenses and permits required by law for the usage of the demised premises, provided always that the failure on the part of the tenant to obtain the same shall not frustrate or affect the obligations of the tenant herein.” Is that what the clause says? IAM: So, I put it to you that it was the Defendant’s duty and obligation to obtain all relevant approvals and consent from the local authority for the purposes of storing palm kernel shells at the – TAN: For our businesses.” [33] Mahkamah bersetuju bahawa peranan bagi mendapatkan lesen untuk kegunaan premis adalah tanggungjawab Defendan tetapi untuk mendapatkan CF, Sijil Bomba, menukar status kegunaan tanah adalah tanggungjawab tuantanah. Ini merujuk kepada keterangan semasa Pemeriksaan Balas SD1 iaitu: “IAM: And I put it to you, Mr Tan, that one of the requirements is to occupy the warehouse and the certificate of fitness. I put it to you, that is one of the conditions. TAN: No. IAM: Ok. TAN: Because I don’t own the warehouse. IAM: But my client’s case is that based on these clauses, it was your obligation. TAN No.” [34] Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes LAI CHIN WAH & ANOR v. SITRAC CORPORATION SDN BHD, COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA [2023] 6 CLJ 232 yang mana diputuskan isu berhubung tanggungjawab dalam menukar status tanah sebagaimana berikut: “[109] Where the title is everything under the Torrens system of title by registration, the developer at the very least must, in their application for subdivision, apply for a restriction in interest to be endorsed in all the subdivided titles that there shall be no application made for change of category of land use and that any transfer of the land shall be with the prior consent in writing of the original proprietor/developer. [35] Isu samada perjanjian pertama dan perjanjian kedua sah dan terpakai serta mengikat pihak-pihak, Mahkamah membuat dapatan bahawa Plaintif mempunyai makluman penuh berhubung status tanah iaitu masih dalam kategori pertanian, bangunan didirikan tanpa kebenaran pihak berkuasa tempatan, tiada CCC tetapi masih memberikan sewaan kepada Defendan dan memuktamadkan 2 perjanjian tersebut. [36] Oleh demikian, Perjanjian-perjanjian dari awal adalah tidak sah (tainted with illegal, unlawful consideration or object). Oleh itu perjanjian-perjanjian tersebut adalah terbatal dan tidak sah mengikut Seksyen 24 Akta Kontrak 1950. Ini semua adalah dalam pengetahuan Plaintif tetapi tidak dalam pengetahuan Defendan. Seksyen 24 Akta Kontrak 1950 24 What considerations and objects are lawful, and what not The consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless-

it is forbidden by a law;

it is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat any law;

it is fraudulent;

it involves or implies injury to the person or property of another; or

the court regards it as immoral, or opposed to public policy. In each of the above cases, the consideration or object of an agreement is said to be unlawful. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void.” [37] Tambahan pula, Plaintif sendiri akui terma dalam perjanjian tersebut adalah penyewaan bagi kegunaan menyimpan kernel sawit di gudang yang telah Plaintif bina. Defendan tahu kewujudan Gudang tersebut atas tanah Plaintif, Gudang tersebut sesuai bagi tujuan dan kegunaan Defendan dan dalam tempoh pertama perjanjian, tidak ada keperluan untuk membangkitkan isu dokumen-dokumen yang berkaitan kerana kernel sawit Defendan telah dilindungi insuran. [38] Keterangan di bawah menyokong fakta bahawa niat pihak-pihak adalah bahawa Gudang dan premis tersebut digunakan untuk menyimpan kernel sawit Defendan. Pemerikaan Balas SP1 “PSP: So, Mr Kevin, may I ask, under the tenancy, what is the permitted usage of the property? KELVIN: Showing in the tenancy, we have already mentioned that, land purpose only, as a basis. PSP: I refer you to page, ok, Bundle B, page 18, ok, this item No.11, right, “Use of demise premises.” Can you tell the Court what is stated there? What is the usage for it? KELVIN: “Strictly for storage of palm kernel shell only.” PSP: Ok, and this is for the first tenancy. Then I refer you to page 35, Item 11. Can you tell the Court what is the usage for the premises? KELVIN: “Strictly for the storage of palm kernel shell only.” [39] Adalah tidak dipertikaikan bahawa status tanah tersebut sehingga ke tarikh bicara masih kekal sebagai tanah pertanian. Mahkamah merujuk keterangan semasa Pemeriksaan Balas SP1 sebagaimana di bawah: “PSP: Now, and I refer you to page No.1, of the same Bundle B, page No.1. What is this, page No.1? What is this document? KELVIN: It's a land title. PSP: So, the land title, what is the category of land use? KELVIN: Pertanian. PSP: And on that same page, what is the express condition? Syarat-syarat nyata. KELVIN: “Hakmilik ini adalah tertakluk kepada peruntukan-peruntukan Kanun Tanah Negara dan kepada syarat-syarat nyata dan sekatan-sekatan berikut,” PSP: Ok. On page 1, at the bottom, there is one big capital word, you know, “Syarat-syarat nyata.” KELVIN: “Tanah ini hendaklah digunakan untuk tanaman getah sahaja.” PSP: So, there is no tanaman getah on the land, but there is a warehouse. Is that correct? [40] Plaintif telah melanggar peruntukan undang-undang khususnya Seksyen 115, seksyen 121, seksyen 125(1) Kanun Tanah Negara serta undang-undang kecil seperti Akta Perkhidmatan Bomba 1988, Akta Kerajaan Tempatan 1976 (AKTA 341), “Uniform Building By Laws 1984” serta “Street, Drainage And Buliding Act 1974”. [41] Antara peruntukan yang berkait dengan undang-undang tanah dalam tindakan di sini adalah seperti berikut:

Where any alienated land is subject by virtue of any provision of this Act to the category "agriculture", the following implied conditions shall, subject to subsection (3), apply thereto:

that no building shall be erected on the land other than a building or buildings to be used for one or more of the purposes specified or referred to in subsection (4); [42] Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes MMC TEPAT TEKNIK SDN BHD v. PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH KLANG & ANOR AND OTHER APPEAL, FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA [2023] 9 CLJ 1 yang memutuskan seperti berikut: [51] It is quite evident that the buildings in these appeals spanned the three lots and these buildings occupied an area far larger than that allowed under s. 115(1). These buildings were also not built or used for the purpose of agriculture let alone occupied as dwelling-houses. The buildings were part of a heavy machinery fabrication plant. Clearly, the buildings in these appeals fall afoul of the NLC. [66] It would be similarly wrong to recognise the right to compensation in respect of the buildings built and used in contravention of law, particularly in the circumstances of this case where the owners were well aware of the illegality from the time the buildings were built. Lots 1604 and 1608, agricultural lands, did not at all permit the construction of the industrial buildings aside from being located in an area zoned for residential purpose or use. The building on Lot 1605 stands conflicted with the planning laws as it was clearly used in contravention of the residential zoning status under the local plan prepared under Act 172. As mentioned earlier, this Act was already in force at the time of the acquisition and it was not open to the Land Administrator or anyone to ignore its clear terms and application. The Land Administrator was not at liberty to look only at the NLC and disregard the zoning conditions under Act 172. [67] This reasoning extends to not only the buildings illegally constructed on the subject lots but also to the use of these buildings. The claims related to such use are thus not compensable. [43] Mahkamah kemudian merujuk kepada seksyen dibawah Seksyen 121(1) (d) Kanun Tanah Negara Where in pursuance of section 52 any land is alienated under this Act subject to the category "agriculture", the State Authority may, in the exercise of its powers under section 120 (and without prejudice to the generality of those powers), impose such conditions as it may think fit—

limiting the maximum *area of the land which may be occupied by dwelling houses and other buildings.

A breach of a condition requiring continuous performance shall arise so soon, and continue so long, as the condition is not complied with. [44] Perlanggaran kepada Akta Kanun Tanah Negara ini boleh menyebabkan sesuatu perjanjian itu tidak sah dan terbatal (illegal). Mahkamah merujuk keputusan dalam kes SINGMA SAWMILL CO SDN BHD v. ASIAN HOLDINGS (INDUSTRIALISED BUILDINGS) SDN BHD, FEDERAL COURT, JOHOR BAHRU [1979] CLJU 96 yang mana diputuskan seperti berikut: “It is not disputed that the land upon which the respondents are tenants is an agricultural land. There is a condition imposed on the use of the land. The condition is that the land is to be planted with rubber and pineapples only. The use of the land for other purposes would, to my mind, be a breach of the said conditions. A breach of conditions arises under s. 125 of the National Land Code as soon, and continues so long, as the condition is not complied with and the land would be liable to a forfeiture under s. 127 of the same Code. The applicants have let the land together with a factory building on it to the respondents solely for the purposes of operating a factory. For this purpose, the respondents have erected machinery on the land. It is clear that the land is being let out in breach of the conditions under s. 120 of the National Land Code. In my opinion the use of the land is therefore unlawful and the letting out of the land for the unlawful purpose would be illegal. … The tenancy agreement dated 16 March 1975 is an agreement for the landlord to let the tenant take a portion of the said land together with a "factory building" erected thereon for a term of years. By cl 8(a) of the agreement it is agreed that the tenant would use the premises solely for purposes of operating a factory. At the time of signing the agreement apparently the landlord did not inform or disclose to the tenant that the land was an agricultural land. The tenant came to know of the irregularities only after the officers from the Industrial Development Department of the State of Johore came to the site and told the tenant that they were operating illegally. This is evidenced by the respondents' letter dated 28 June 1976 to the applicants informing them of the discovery of the irregularities (Bundle marked B page 17 referred to in the affidavit of Michel C Soelle dated 12 January 1977). The applicants did not deny the allegations contained that the applicants had misrepresented the facts to the respondents when the tenancy agreement was signed. Had the respondents known that the land was not meant for industry I am sure they would not have agreed to enter into the tenancy agreement. It follow therefore that applicants are guilty of giving an illegal consideration to the agreement. Section 24(6) of the Contracts Act, 1950 provides that the consideration of an agreement is unlawful if it is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat any law. By allowing the land to be used for industrial purposes would defeat the law in that it would defeat the conditions imposed on the land by the State Authority. Since the consideration for the contract is illegal the contract itself would be void or voidable. A contract cannot be enforced if the promise by one party is illegal. In other words a void contract cannot be enforced.” [45] Oleh itu, bagi isu samada Plaintif berhak menuntut baki tunggakan sewa dari Jun 2023 hingga Disember 2023 dan sewa bagi tempoh Januari 2024 hingga Februari 2024 berdasarkan Perjanjian kedua, Mahkamah membuat dapatan bahawa Plaintif tidak mempunyai hak dengan menggunapakai suatu perjanjian yang tidak sah dan terbatal (illegal contract). [46] Isu samada Plaintif berhak untuk menuntut gantirugi pecah kontrak Perjanjian Kedua dan juga gantirugi pecah masuk serta sewa berganda (double rental) dari 29/2/2024 hingga serahan milikan kosong pula, bagi kedua-dua isu ini, memandangkan perjanjian adalah suatu perjanjian yang tidak sah di sisi undang-undang (illegal contract), Plaintif disekat dari menerima apa-apa keuntungan daripada 2 perjanjian tersebut di bawah Seksyen 24 Akta Kontrak 1950. [47] Mahkamah merujuk kes-kes di bawah bagi menyokong kedudukan perjanjian yang tidak sah (illegal contract). Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes EE NYAN HON & BROTHERS SDN BHD V. METRO CHARM SDN BHD [2009] 6 CLJ 626; [2009] 6 MU 450, 459 memutuskan - "[19] This clear and well recognized legal maxim is founded in good sense. No court will enforce an illegal contract or allow itself to be made the instrument of enforcing obligations arising out of a contract or transaction which is illegal, and the illegality is duly brought to the notice of the court, and the person invoking the aid of the court is himself implicated in the illegality, even if the defendant has not pleaded the illegality. So long as the evidence adduced by the plaintiff proves the illegality, the court will not assist him". [48] Sementara dalam kes DETIK RIA SDN BHD v. PRUDENTIAL CORPORATION HOLDINGS LTD & ANOR, FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA [2025] 4 CLJ 159 diputuskan seperti berikut: [135] Generally, our courts have taken the position that in order to invoke s. 66, parties are required to have no knowledge of the illegality. To that end, parties are required to come to court with clean hands in order to succeed in a claim under s. 66. In an article entitled 'Relief For Claims Based on Contracts Tainted by Illegality' on Lex; In Breve, University of Malaya Law Review, Choong Shaw Mei, lecturer at the Faculty of Law, University of Malaya, examines the premise for the application of s. 66 in considerable depth. [136] As pointed out by the learned author, the requirement for the absence of knowledge of the illegality was not the position taken in the days when s. 66 was known as s. 65 of the Contract Enactment 1899 ('the Contract Enactment). In support of this, reference is made to the case of Khem Singh v. Anokh Singh [1930] CLJU 2; [1930] 1 LNS 2. In that case, Elphinstone CJ disagreed with the then-prevailing view of the Indian Courts at the time, stating: The Indian Courts have taken the view that the words discovered to be void limit the operation of the section to cases where a contract is found to be void by reason of some facts not known to the parties at the date of the contract, but subsequently discovered? With the greatest respect to the Indian Courts I feel unable to adopt that view. The words "when an agreement is discovered to be void" are in general terms. The section is silent as to when or by whom or for what reason the agreement is to be discovered to be void. In my opinion the words "discovered to be void" would mean no more than "if found to be void". In the course of this suit the Court has found the agreement sued upon to be void. In this sense the agreement has been discovered to be void, and section 65 seems to be exactly applicable. (emphasis added). [49] Dalam tindakan di sini, samada Defendan berhak untuk menuntut semula jumlah yang telah dibayar bagi sewa dan juga deposit jaminan berdasarkan kedua-dua perjanjian, Mahkamah memutuskan memandangkan Plaintif gagal membuktikan pengetahuan dan persetujuan dari awal pihak Defendan dalam memasuki perjanjian-perjanjian tersebut dan terbukti serta diakui bahawa Perjanjian-perjanjian adalah tidak sah di sisi undang-undang, Defendan berhak menuntut semula jumlah yang telah dibayar dan secara keseluruhan di bawah bidangkuasa Mahkamah ini, jumlah tuntutan dihadkan kepada RM1,000,000.00 sahaja. [50] Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes LIM SWEE CHOO & ANOR v. ONG KOH HOU & ANOTHER APPEAL, COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA [2024] 6 CLJ 811 yang membenarkan pemulangan wang akibat perjanjian yang tidak sah. “(4) In view of the total failure of consideration, the High Court should have applied the restitutionary basis and ordered the plaintiffs to return RM23,000,000 to the defendant. Such failure by the High Court tantamount to legal error which had caused injustice to the defendant and warranted appellate intervention. The defendant's failure to deny the first plaintiff's demand could not be a valid ground for the High Court's refusal to invoke the restitutionary basis. In this light, the decision of the High Court in dismissing the counterclaim was set aside. The plaintiffs were jointly and severally liable to return to the defendant the sum of RM23,000,000. (paras 44, 47, 48 & 52). [51] Ini berbeza dengan kes TETAP TIARA SDN BHD v. HATCHING EDUCATION GROUP SDN BHD, HIGH COURT MALAYA, SHAH ALAM [2024] 5 CLJ 322 apabila defendan/responden telah mengetahui sejak April 2018 dan masih meneruskan penyewaan. Fakta kes ini lebihkurang sama dengan kes dihadapan kita sekarang yang mana Mahkamah petik sebagaimana berikut: “The defendant ('appellant') and plaintiff ('respondent') entered into a tenancy agreement whereby the appellant agreed to rent two premises at its commercial project for three years, from 1 January 2018, to the respondent at a combined monthly rental of RM35,000. The respondent subsequently discovered that there were internal renovations done in the premises, which had deviated from the original building plan, without the approval from the local authority. Accordingly, the respondent was unable to apply for trade licenses to operate its business at the premises and thereby terminated the agreement on the grounds that the agreement was void for illegality and vacated the premises on 31 March 2019. On 15 March 2019, the respondent had filed a suit in the Sessions Court and sought, amongst others, a declaration that the agreement was null and void and refund of RM332,684.40 being the rental payments that had been made to the appellant for the premises. The appellant counterclaimed for RM262,959.17, being alleged outstanding rental and charges for the premises, and damages to be assessed by the court for loss of rental for the unexpired term of the tenancy and reinstatement cost. The Sessions Court Judge allowed the respondent's claims and dismissed the appellant's counterclaim. Hence, this appeal. Held (allowing appeal in part):

The agreement between the parties had breached the various provisions of the law. The parties in a contract could not through an 'agreement' or a 'waiver' validate any non-compliance with the provisions of the law. The respondent became aware of the 'deviation' since April 2018 and continued to occupy the premises until March 2019 - running its business uninterrupted. However, the continued occupation of running of the business did not detract from the fact that there were non-compliance/breaches of the provisions of the law relating to the premises. Consequently, the respondent was entitled to terminate the tenancy agreement. (paras 30, 32, 34 & 36)

The 'non-compliances' were capable of being 'regularised'. While the tenancy agreement may be null and void and thus unenforceable, the tenancy agreement per se was not illegal. It followed that the respondent should be estopped from relying on the deviation committed by the appellant to seek a refund of the rentals that it had paid. The respondent was also precluded from seeking restitution pursuant to s. 66 of the Contracts Act 1950. The respondent must pay for the rentals due while in occupation of the premises and since the rentals had been paid, the respondent was not entitled to a refund of the rentals. It was an overkill for the appellant to having to refund the rentals to the respondent for non-compliance with the Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974. The respondent should not be entitled to the refund of the rentals, save for the deposit it had paid to the appellant. (paras 38, 40-43, 46 & 47)

As the respondent was entitled to terminate the tenancy agreement, the appellant's counterclaim was disallowed. [52] Oleh demikian, Mahkamah membenarkan tuntutan balas Defendan bagi item (a), (b), (c) dan (d) iaitu Perisytiharan bahawa Perjanjian Penyewaan bertarikh 21/3/2020 adalah menyalahi undang-undang dan tidak sah (is illegal and/or void) dan menyalahi undang-undang, tidak sah (is illegal and/or void), suatu Perintah untuk Plaintif membayar dan mengembalikan wang berjumlah RM1,257,000.00 kepada Defendan sebagai pembayaran sewaan dan/atau deposit yang dikutip oleh Plaintif sejak tahun 2020 dan juga Perintah untuk mengembalikan deposit sekuriti sebanyak RM99,000.00 kepada Defendan. [53] Bagi item (e) kos pemindahan, pengalihan dan pengosongan cangkang sawit (palm kernel shell) dan loji serta peralatan dari premis tersebut hendaklah ditanggung oleh Defendan sendiri dan Defendan perlu mengosongkan premis tersebut dalam tempoh 14 hari dari tarikh perintah ini atas alasan Defendan setelah mengetahui perjanjian tidak sah masih lagi tidak menyerahkan milikan kosong kepada Plaintif dan menyimpan cangkan sawit, loji serta peralatan atas pilihan sendiri. [54] Defendan sepatutnya mengambil tindakan segera dengan sewajarnya apabila maklum tentang perjanjian yang tidak sah dan terbatal tersebut. Tempoh masa yang diberikan oleh pihak Plaintif juga adalah tidak munasabah melihat daripada keadaan Gudang dan sifat urusniaga Defendan. [55] Oleh itu, Defendan harus menanggung kos bagi pengosongan semula premis dan mengembalikan milikan kosong dalam tempoh segera (30 hari). [56] Akhirnya Mahkamah membuat dapatan bahawa Plaintif telah gagal untuk membuktikan kes mereka terhadap Defendan dan Defendan telah berjaya membuktikan sebahagian tuntutan balas yang diplidkan. Mahkamah menolak tuntutan Plaintif terhadap Defendan dan membenarkan tuntutan-balas Defendan terhadap Plaintif dengan kos sebanyak RM30,000.00. Sekian untuk pertimbangan YAH. Disediakan oleh: Sazlina Safie …………………………. Sazlina Bt Safie Hakim Sesyen, Mahkamah Sesyen 2, Mahkamah Sesyen Kuantan, Pahang. Tarikh :1/6/2025 PEGUAMCARA PLAINTIF: CIK INTAN AZLINA MAZLAN CIK DYNA-SRI A/P SAMADASS [TETUAN HAFARIZAM WAN & AISHA MUBARAK] PEGUAMCARA DEFENDAN: CIK PANG SAW PIN EN. TAN YI HENG EN. LIM CHEANG NYOK [TETUAN LIM & YEOH]