PENGHUNI-PENGHUNI YANG TIDAK DIKENALI DAN ATAU ORANG-ORANG YANG TIDAK DIKENALI YANG TELAH MENDUDUKI DAN/ATAU BERADA DI 01/05/2025 13:54:57 BA-24NCvC-508-03/2024 Kand. 70 ATAS HARTANAH YANG DIKENALI SEBAGAI GERAN MUKIM 6288, NO. LOT 1033, TEMPAT SUNGAI KANDIS, MUKIM KLANG, DAERAH KLANG, NEGERI SELANGOR BERALAMAT DI LOT 1033 – R8, BATU 3, JALAN KAMPUNG JAWA, KAMPUNG SUNGAI KANDIS SEKSYEN 36, 40470 SHAH ALAM, SELANGOR GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION [1] This Originating Summons is filed by the plaintiff under Order 89 of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC 2012), seeking the defendants to deliver vacant possession of Lots 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 28 held under Geran Mukim 6288 No. Lot 1033, Tempat Sungai Kandis, Mukim Klang, Daerah Klang, Negeri Selangor (the land). BACKGROUND FACTS [2] By way of a Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 6.4.2023, the plaintiff purchased the Land from Jutrimek Sdn Bhd for a purchase price of RM60,000.00. On 26.7.2023, the plaintiff became the registered owner of 3/16 of the land. [3] There are three properties situated on Lots 10 to 14 of the land, which are Lot 1033-R8, Lot 1033-R9, and Lot 1033-R10. The locations of Lot 1033-R8, Lot 1033-R9, and Lot 1033-R10 on the Land can be found in the Affidavit by Kiew Leh Seng, exhibited as J-7 in the Affidavit in Reply (Enclosure 50). [4] The first defendant occupying Lot 1033-R8 did not file any affidavit to challenge the plaintiff’s application. [5] The second defendant resides on Lot 1033-R9, while the third defendant resided on Lot 1033-R10. Both the second and third defendants challenged the plaintiff’s application. THE PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION [6] This application for summary action is based on the grounds that the defendants occupied the land without the plaintiff’s permission. The plaintiff is now seeking this Court to compel the defendants to deliver possession of the land to the plaintiff. THE SECOND AND THIRD DEFENDANTS' SUBMISSION [7] The second defendant and his mother Anggamah a/p Singgaram (Anggamah) filed an affidavit in Enclosure 45 with a counterclaim on behalf of the second and third defendants disputing the plaintiffs’ claim. The assertion made by them is that they have the right to occupy Lot 1033- R9 and Lot 1033-R10. [8] The second and third defendants, along with Anggamah, assert that on 23 May 1985, the previously registered owner, Jutrimek Sdn Bhd, granted permission to Sevalkumaran and Anggamah to occupy the property, as indicated in Exhibit MS(a) 2 of Encl. 45. Jutrimek Sdn Bhd also granted Sevalkumaran and Anggamah the first option to purchase the property should Jutrimek Sdn Bhd decide to sell the land. [9] Based on the permission granted by Jutrimek Sdn Bhd, Anggamah, the second and third defendants spent a significant amount of money to build and renovate houses on Lot 1033-R9 and Lot 1033-R10. In addition, the parents of the second and third defendants have lived on Lot 1033-R9 and Lot 1033-R10 for the past 39 years. [10] The second and third defendants further averred that the previous landowner sold and transferred the land to the plaintiff without giving them the first option to purchase it. Therefore, the dispute here concerns the continued possession of the land. Consequently, this case is not suitable for summary disposal under Order 89 rule 1 ROC 2012. [11] The second and third defendants further assert that the sale of the land to the plaintiff violates the rights previously granted by Jutrimek Sdn Bhd, the previous owner, to their parents. APPLICABLE WRITTEN LAW [12] The legal basis for this application is found in Order 89 rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012, which reads as follows – 89 Summary Proceedings for Possession of Land Rule 1. Proceedings to be brought by originating summons Where a person claims possession of land which he alleges is occupied solely by a person or persons (not being a tenant or tenants holding over after the termination of the tenancy) who entered into or remained in occupation without his licence or consent or that of any predecessor in title of his, the proceedings may be brought by originating summons in accordance with the provisions of this Order. ISSUES TO BE DECIDED [13] Given the circumstances of this case, I find that the issues to be decided are as follows: i. Whether the second and third defendants had shown that they are not squatters and have permission to occupy the land. ii. Whether the plaintiff has the right to possess the land. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS [14] The legal principles governing the summary procedure under Order 89 are the same as those under Order 14. In the summary procedure, the contest was founded upon evidence from the affidavit. [15] In Bohari bin Taib & Ors v Pengarah Tanah Galian Selangor [1991] 1 MLJ 343, it was decided that where the entry to the land is lawful and there are triable issues, this Order is not the proper procedure to evict occupiers by order for possession. Issue 1: Whether the second and third defendants had shown that they are not squatters and have permission to occupy the land. [16] The second and third defendants' assertion of their rights to occupy the land was based on the occupation by their parents from 1985 to the present. They claimed that they occupied the land with the consent of the previous landowner, Jutrimek Sdn Bhd. The letter from Jutrimek Sdn Bhd was exhibited as MS(a) 2 to the second defendant’s affidavit, along with his mother, Anggamah. [17] In addition, they exhibited pictures of the houses they renovated. They stated that the renovations were based on the previous owner's promise that they were allowed to occupy the land. [18] The second and third defendants further asserted that Jutrimek Sdn Bhd breached the option granted to their mother, Anggamah and Sevalkumaran on 23.5.1985, by transferring the land to the plaintiff without Anggamah's or their knowledge. [19] In light of this, the learned counsel for the second and third defendants submits that the summary procedure is not an appropriate method for disposing of the plaintiff’s claim when the first entry or occupation was lawful. [20] I find that the consent granted to the parents of the second and third defendants to occupy the land by the previous landowner ended when the previous landowner issued a revocation of permission to stay and use the land dated 1.11.2022. Following this, an eviction notice for unauthorised occupation of the land, dated 1.3.2023, was issued to evict the defendants. These notices are exhibited in the Supplemental Affidavit, affirmed by Kiew Leh Seng from Jutrimek Sdn Bhd. [21] I have also carefully considered the submissions from the second and third defendants, but I found that they have no merit. [22] Based on the termination letter and notice of eviction, it is my considered view that the previous landowner did not consent to the second and third defendants occupying the land. Additionally, the second and third defendants did not deny or raise any objections to the revocation letter and eviction notice issued by the previous landowner. [23] In the case of Tetuan Tokoyaki property Sdn Bhd v. Sam Kok Sang @ Tham Sow Seng & Ors [2001] 4 CLJ 97; [2001] 1 MLJ 585, the High Court held that - An illegal squatter has no protection in law or in equity to enable him to claim a right to live or occupy the said lot which the plaintiffs as the registered owners are entitled and have every right to evict the first defendant by summary procedure. Merely erecting a building unlawfully on the plaintiff' lot and occupying is not sufficient to create any right or equity. The first defendant has also no protection in equity because s 48 of the national Land Code 1965. [24] I also agree with the submission from the learned counsel for the plaintiff that prolonged occupancy of the said land does not confer any rights to the defendants regarding the land. In Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur & Anor v Tan Poh Wah & Ors [2018] 11 MLJ 198, the Court held that – [54] They have no claim to title or any registrable interest over the land. And being squatters, they have no right either in law or in equity, see: Sidek bin Haji Muhammad & 461 Ors v The Government of the State of Perak & Ors [1982] 1 MLJ 313 (FC). Further under s 341 of the NLC, no claims may be made against a registered land owner based on adverse possession. Section 341 of the NLC reads as: Adverse possession of land for any length of time whatsoever shall not constitute a bar to the bringing of any action for the recovery thereof by the proprietor or any person or body entitled to an interest therein, and accordingly, the Limitation Act 1953, shall in no circumstances operate to extinguish any title to, or interest in, land. [61] In Malaysia there is no concept of adverse possession which entitles the user or occupant to assert any legal or equitable rights. In Kabra Holdings Sdn Bhd v Ahmad Shahlan & Ors & Others Persons Unknown [1992] 2 CLJ Rep 609 (HC) Lim beng Choon J said at p 616 ‘ Adverse possession regardless of the period can never give the defendants the right to occupy the disputed land pursuant to ss 48 and 341 of the National Land Code. [25] Given that the second and third defendants are clearly neither tenants, tenants holding over, nor occupants of the property with the licence or consent of the plaintiff or his predecessor in title, the Court finds that there is no triable issue and that the plaintiff’s application can be heard under Order 89 ROC 2012. Issue 2: Whether the plaintiff has the right to possess the land. [26] The plaintiff specified his interest in the Affidavit in Support, as required by Order 89 rule 3 of ROC 2012. [27] There is no doubt that the plaintiff is the registered owner of 3/16 of the land, which includes lots 10-14 and 28. The location of these particular lots can be seen in Exhibit YEH 7 Plaintiff’s Affidavit in Reply. [28] In Bukit Lenang Development Sdn Bhd v Penduduk-penduduk Yang Menduduki Atas Tanah HS(D) 151079 – HS(D) 151601, Mukim Plentong, Daerah Johor Bharu [1999] 6 MLJ 25 it was held that – In any event upon registration of the plaintiff as proprietor under s 340 of the National Land Code the plaintiff’s rights accrue with immediate effect. This rights includes the right to immediate possession of the said land. [29] Since the plaintiff is the registered owner of the land, I find that the plaintiff is entitled to immediate possession. CONCLUSION [30] In the premises, I find no triable issues of fact or law. Therefore, I allow Enclosure 1 with costs of RM5,000 to the plaintiff, subject to allocator. Dated: 1 May 2025. Signed ...............................................................