Can tenant sub-let the property/premises?

Can tenant sub-let the property/premises?

In a recent case decided by Yang Arif Dato Ahmad Bin Bache, Yow Khai Cheng v Li Tiam Chai (Appeal No. WA-12BNCVC-63-06/2019), it was held that a tenant CANNOT sub-let the premises without the written permission of the Landlord, even if there was no such clause or terms stipulated in the tenancy agreement, as it is deemed to be implied.

The reasoning behind this is that the Landlord in renting out his premises would like to know what happens to his premises thereafter and what does the Tenant do with it. If the tenant decides to sub-let the premises, the Landlord has the right to know and to be able to allow or deny the tenant from doing so.

It is clear that it is implied in the tenancy agreement that tenant CANNOT sub-let premises without written permission of the Landlord. The Court has taken the position that this decision is fair or else the tenant will be unfairly enriched.

In conclusion, it is particularly important for tenant to first get a written approval or consent from Landlord in order to sub-let the premises to another. Failing which, the tenant would be in breach of the tenancy agreement.

Whether the Landlord can charge double rental?

A very common question we get is whether the Landlord can charge double rental if the tenant refuses to give up possession after the Tenancy has expired/has been terminated by the Landlord?

We refer to the recent Federal Court decision of Rohasassets Sdn. Bhd. v. Weatherford (M) Sdn. Bhd. [2020] 1 CLJ 638.

It was decided, on expiry of the tenancy, Section 28(4)(a) Civil Law Act 1956 kicks in to give the landlord the right to charge double rental and the double rent continues to be chargeable until possession is given up by the tenant who holds over the property without the Landlord’s consent.

To enable the Landlord to charge double rental, there must be a failure/refusal by the tenant to give up possession after being told/demanded to do so by the Landlord.

It was decided in the case that even if the tenant is not guilty of contumacious (stubbornly or wilfully disobedient) conduct, the tenant is still liable to pay double rent if the Landlord has decided to charge double rent and does not consent to the tenant’s holding over and has asked the former tenant to vacate the premises.