North West Depoh Sdn Bhd v Swift Logistics Yard Sdn Bhd

Appellant(s): North West Depoh Sdn Bhd

Respondent(s): Swift Logistics Yard Sdn Bhd

• YA Datuk Azhahari Kamal bin Ramli
• YA Dato' Ahmad Fairuz bin Zainol Abidin
• YA Dato' Ong Chee Kwan

• The landlord let land to the tenant for a container depot business under a tenancy agreement, which was subsequently varied and renewed by letters and agreed to be surrendered in three staggered stages covering 27 acres.
• The tenant failed to deliver up possession at each agreed stage, remained in occupation of the whole land, and obtained an interlocutory injunction restraining its eviction pending trial, eventually delivering vacant possession only years later pursuant to a stay order.
• At trial, the tenant's defence and counterclaim (alleging a promise of indefinite occupation, expenditure of RM6 million, and duress in agreeing to the 2022 surrender terms) were rejected on the facts, and the High Court held the tenant was holding over on an expired tenancy, ordering vacant possession, outstanding rental, double rental under section 28(4)(a) of the Civil Law Act 1956, and damages to be assessed.

• Whether double rental under section 28(4)(a) of the Civil Law Act 1956 was correctly awarded, in particular whether the landlord needed to prove wilful or contumacious conduct by the tenant in holding over.
• Whether an order for damages to be assessed could stand where the head of claim was pleaded only in general terms, and whether such an award would amount to double recovery alongside double rental.
• The applicable standard of appellate review for disturbing findings of fact made by the trial judge after a full trial.

• The Court held that, following the Federal Court's decision in Rohasassets, the option to charge double rent belongs to the landlord, not the court, and the court's role is merely to assess whether that option was exercised properly and lawfully; proof of contumacious conduct by the tenant is not required, only that the tenant failed or refused to give up possession after being told to do so.
• On the facts, the landlord had given ample notice and repeated demands to vacate and never consented to continued occupation, while the tenant had agreed in writing to the surrender timetable yet failed to comply and even obtained an injunction to remain; the statutory requirements for double rental were therefore satisfied and the order was upheld.
• The order for damages to be assessed was also upheld as the relevant head of loss (loss of enjoyment, possession and profit) had been pleaded, with the Court noting that any assessment must guard against double recovery for the same period already compensated by double rental; the appeal was dismissed with costs of RM30,000 to the Respondent.