KUALA LUMPUR: Over 100 buyers of a condominium in Mukim Pulai, Johor Baru, today succeeded in their civil action against property developer Tropika Istimewa Development Sdn Bhd for breaching the Housing Development laws which caused them to suffer losses.
Court of Appeal judge Datuk Mohd Sofian Abd Razak, who was the trial judge, in allowing the suit brought by the buyers said the developer had misrepresented to the buyers that they were entering into a Sales and Purchase Agreement (SPA) to purchase the property and not the purchase of the lease.
"Based on this, the court is satisfied that the plaintiffs (buyers) have proven their claim against the defendant (developer)," he said in his decision.
He ordered the defendant to pay RM30,000 as costs to the 107 buyers.
The judge also granted the buyers the reliefs they sought, including a declaration that the SPA was invalid and contravened the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966, the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989, the National Land Code 1965 as well as the Strata Titles Act 1985.
The court also granted an order for the developer to pay the buyers damages as a result of the misrepresentation and breach of terms and conditions under the Schedule as well as an order for the developer to pay Liquidated Ascertained Damages to the plaintiffs for late delivery of vacant possession.
Counsel Datuk Andy Wong represented all the plaintiffs while Marcus Tan acted for the defendant.
The defendant is a housing developer for the development of a condominium project known as "The Meridin@Medini" on a freehold land under Mukim Pulai, Johor Baru, Johor, belonging to Iskandar Investment Bhd.
According to the statement of claim, the 107 buyers claimed that as a result of the misrepresentation by the developer they incurred losses and damages which the latter was liable to pay.
They claimed that Iskandar Investment Bhd as the proprietor has granted a lease on the land to Medini Land Sdn Bhd for 99 years from April 15, 2013, expiring April 14, 2112.
They contended that a Lease Purchase Agreement (LPA) dated Oct 18, 2012, was signed between Medini Land and the defendant.
The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant was also granted the right to develop the land as a stratified housing development and sell the lease over the strata units in the project
They claimed that they made an earnest deposit of RM10,000 to the developer for the purchase of a parcel in the said project which included a parking lot.
Upon execution of the agreement, the plaintiffs claimed that they paid the balance 10 per cent of the purchase price and paid the balance of the purchase price progressively from time to time by cash or bank loans.
They claimed that based on the agreement, the defendant had among others misrepresented that it has legal rights to enter into the SPA with them for the sale of lease over the strata parcels to them.
The plaintiffs contended that the agreement did not comply with the provisions of the existing law and was in breach of Schedule H.
They claimed that any amendments made by the defendant in the agreement which are inconsistent with the terms and conditions as found in the Regulations shall be invalid and shall not be binding on the plaintiffs.
They also said that the defendant had acted wrongly in breach of the provisions of the Housing Development Act and Regulations, NLC and STA when it divided the SPA into two separate agreements for the unit and the parking lot.
The plaintiffs also claimed that the defendant had breached all the provisions when amending the time period of delivery of vacant possession from 36 months to 48 months.
When met outside the court, National House Buyers Association secretary-general Datuk Chang Kim Loong who was present in the proceedings expressed gratitude to the court's decision today.