KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court has ruled that a utility room and 115 parking bays at the First Residence condominium in Kepong belong to their registered owner, rejecting the management corporation’s and 94 unit owners’ application to have them declared common property.
Justice Anand Ponnudurai dismissed two consolidated suits brought by the First Residence Management Corporation (FRMC) and Wong Peng Hung, who represented the 94 residential and commercial unit owners.
“The inevitable conclusion is that the plaintiffs have failed to prove on a balance of probabilities their various claims against the defendants,” Anand said in his 90-page grounds of judgment.
The plaintiffs had brought the suit against TSI Property Management Sdn Bhd, the registered proprietor of the disputed property, and TSI Domain Sdn Bhd, the developer of the mixed residential and commercial development.
The dispute centred on a 15.42 sq m utility room, known as Utility 1, together with 115 accessory car park parcels on Level 1 of the development.
FRMC and the purchasers contended that the utility room and car parks formed part of the common property but had been unlawfully carved out and sold by the developer to TSI Property Management.
The plaintiffs also sought to set aside the strata title, alleging fraud in its issuance, and claimed the development was left with insufficient visitor and disabled parking.
However, Anand held that the plaintiffs had failed to establish fraud or any other grounds under Section 340(2) of the National Land Code to defeat TSI Property Management’s registered title.
He noted that although they alleged the planning authorities had been deceived into approving the subdivision and issuing the strata titles, they did not call any witness from Kuala Lumpur City Hall, the federal territories land and mines office, or the survey and mapping department.
“Having made that choice, they cannot now invite this court to find that those authorities were deceived without the benefit of any evidence from the alleged victims of the purported fraud,” he said.
The judge also ruled that Utility 1 and the 115 car park bays were never designated as common property in the certified strata plans or the schedule of parcels.
“Since Utility 1 and the 115 accessory parcels are expressly identified as a parcel and accessory parcels respectively in the documents, they cannot in law be reclassified or treated otherwise,” he said.
No breach of contract
Anand also rejected the plaintiffs’ claim that the developer had breached the sale and purchase agreements by failing to provide sufficient visitor parking and the promised three-tier security system.
He found that the development had more than 900 parking bays, exceeding the number required under the development orders, while the security system was provided and continues to function.
Anand also dismissed TSI Property Management’s counterclaim alleging that FRMC had trespassed by padlocking the utility room and blocking access to the car parks, finding there was insufficient evidence to support the allegation.
He made no order as to costs against the 94 purchasers but ordered the management corporation to pay RM60,000 in costs to the defendants.
Neela Iaduray appeared for FRMC and the purchasers, while Kamraj Nayagam, D Maya Gayathri and Rosemary Ting acted for TSI Property Management and TSI Domain.
