on behalf of The Estate of Ewe Kim Sum, deceased,
47A, School Lane,
11600 George Town,
December 4th. 2012
Attn. Mr. Tomis Peter Samat
Director of the Complaints Secretariat
Advocates & Solicitors Disciplinary Board
8t" and 9th Floor
28 Medan Pasar
50050 Kuala Lumpur.
Complaint No. DB/12/7737
Complaint Against Messr. Gurunam Singh & Co.
Respondent :1. Mr. Gurunam Singh s/o Joginder Singh
2. Mr. Ganeson a/l Manickam Kumarasamy
Messrs Gurunam Singh & Co.
1st. Floor, No. 90 Lebuh Gereja,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thank you for taking up my complaint and your reply dated 23/11/2012 together with the reply from the Respondents.
I refer to the reply from the Respondents and I do like to give my reply as follows.
There are 5 main points, which I had gone through both Respondents. They are:
I. Summary Judgement cannot be given against any one with license to stay, i.e. lessees, tenants, and including over-stayed tenants as expressed out by our Federal Judges. It was this point which the Respondents failed to express out in both the stay and the appeal. If they had expressed out which they willfully omitted to do then the sitting judges in both the stay and the appeal would had noticed the defect of the Summary Judgement. The Session Court Judge had no mandate or authority to give summary judgement against us based on the point expressed out our Federal Judges. There would be a good chance that the sitting judges declared the summary judgement against us as null and void.
This applies to any order whether it is under 89 for the High court or 26A for Session Court applications for Summary Judgements.
II. The sworn statements by the Plaintiffs that we were squatters was never used to attack on the creditability of their affidavits and statements. If the Respondents had expressed out then the sitting judges would not look favourably to the plaintiffs’ affidavits.
III. Ground Tenancy is confirmed to be a long-term lease and Notice to Quit cannot be used to evict leaseholders.
IV. National Land Code 1965
Section 4 Savings states that pre-existing contracts are still valid. Section 206 (3) protects a ground tenant if his tenancy /lease was effected by any provisions of any previous laws, eg his ground tenancy/ lease came into being as result of his premises being legally approved by the local council.
V. National Land Code (Penang & Malacca Titles) Ac 1963
Section 79 Saving states “Nothing in section 77 or 78 shall be construed as preventing any unregistered instrument from operating as a contract or as affecting the operation of any judgement or award of any Court.” Other Sections applicable are 36, 37 and 58. Under the old Straits Settlements’ Conveyancing and Law of Property Ordinance a last receipt would be good enough as evidence of a lease.
VI. The defective points raised in my affidavits by Mr. Allen Choong without my full knowledge as I was only given signature copies put me at a disadvantage.The main one was the so-claimed written agreement for the renewal lease. In fact Mr. Allen Choong knew fully well that there was none as shown in his letter dated It was agreed by the Respondents that receipts and our premises No. 164 were good enough evidence of a lease contract. We were supposed to state that the previous land owners did not registered the lease because the NLC 1965 recognises pre-existing contracts. So the previous land owners did not prepare the contract in order not to break the law. Rightly our lease should be based on land law of the time in 1947 which should be Malayan Union Laws. This was why put forward them that our lease might be 99 years or a perceptual one, 999 years.
The Respondents had gone through with me on the above points, both verbally and in written as shown in my attached letters (Letters)....