Case:

Brief Facts:

• Aida Ratini binti Mansor [under the business of AR Lahore Enterprise], is a tenant of Sungei Wang Plaza Sdn Bhd and Sungei Wang Holdings Sdn Bhd.
  
  
• The parties agreed to a rent of RM30,000 per month for the premise in question.
  
  
• However, Sungei Wang Plaza increased the rent to RM69,026.46 per month which Aida did not agree to.
  
  
• When Aida failed to pay the increased rent, Sungei Wang Plaza applied to the Sessions Court and obtained an ex parte distress order based on outstanding rental of RM720,262.60 according to the increased rent of RM69,026.46 per month.
  
  
• Sungei Wang Plaza also obtained an order to lock the premises that Aida had occupied in the distress action.

[A distress order is when a landlord gets an order from Court to seize the tenant’s movable property from the rented premises. Following that the seizure, the property will be sold, and the proceeds will be utilized to settle the tenant’s rental arrears with the landlord].

• Aida then applied to set aside the distress order by Sungei Wang Plaza but it was dismissed by the Sessions Court. As a result, Aida appealed to the High Court.

THE DECISION OF HIGH COURT (HC) – APPEAL ALLOWED

• The HC ruled that Sungei Wang Plaza as the landlord cannot apply for an ex parte writ of distress for an increased rent that was not agreed to by Aida, the tenant.
  
  
• The HC noted that if Sungei Wang Plaza raised the rent and Aida did not agree to the increased rental, what Sungei Wang Plaza may do is that it may give Aida a proper notice to quit, and after that it may sue Aida for vacant possession.
  
  
• Therefore, the HC held that Sungei Wang Plaza had no right to seize the property for its increased rent that Aida did not agree to.
  
  
• Moreover, the HC ruled that Sungei Wang Plaza in an ex parte writ of distress cannot apply for a court order to lock up Aida’s rented premises because such a right is not provided for under ss. 5 and 7 of the Distress Act 1951.