Court Strikes Out BritishIndia Suit
Clothing company loses bid to challenge eviction from Suria KLCC
Suria KLCC
KUALA LUMPUR: Home-grown fashion brand BritishIndia may be required to pay nearly RM7mil in rent, after failing in its bid to challenge its eviction from Suria KLCC [Suria Kuala Lumpur City Centre].
The High Court dismissed a suit by the boutique's owner BTC Clothier Sdn Bhd to continue operating in the prime location, finding that the termination of its tenancy was legal.
High Court judge Justice Nor Bee Ariffin ruled in favour of defendant Suria KLCC Sdn Bhd, saying the clothing company had breached its terms of tenancy by not vacating the premises after the mall chose not to renew its tenancy past July 2014.
The judge also allowed Suria KLCC's counter claim – to be paid double-rental for the 20 months BritishIndia continued to operate.
According to court papers sighted by The Star, the rent for BritishIndia’s store at Lots 111A & 111B on the first floor was RM151,679 a month as of 2014.
Suria KLCC’s lead counsel Tan Sri Cecil Abraham told the court that by his calculations, his client was owed around RM6.7mil in back-rental.
The court also ordered payment of 5% interest per annum on the amount, plus RM100,000 in costs.
BTC Clothier's lawyer Khong Jo Ee was denied her verbal application for a stay of execution pending an appeal of the decision, and was instructed to submit a written application instead.
The tenancy battle began in May 28, 2014, when the mall management informed that it did not intend to renew BritishIndia's tenancy, and subsequently sent a letter of termination dated July 4.
BTC Clothier fired back with a suit on July 7, seeking a declaration that a tenancy subsists between the company and KLCC, and that KLCC had unlawfully terminated the tenancy agreement.
It also claimed Suria KLCC ordered that BritishIndia unconditionally accept the terms of offer to relocate to the second floor or have its premises boarded up.
The clothing company was one of the original tenants, renting the premises for 16 years.
In its counter claim, Suria KLCC stated that their tenancy agreement, which expired on June 30 2014, gave BritishIndia no option to renew.
It contended that since the tenancy had expired, there was nothing unlawful about boarding up the space and it was BritishIndia that had failed to yield vacant possession of the premises.
Suria KLCC claimed it had no desire to keep BritishIndia as a tenant, and that the offer to relocate was merely to give it an opportunity to continue doing business.
Source | The Star
Boldly go. LLAP
