Landlord and Tenant Disputes in Malaysia: Deposits, Repairs and WhatsApp Evidence
Introduction
Tenancy disputes in Malaysia are rarely limited to one simple question of whether rent was paid.
When a tenancy comes to an end, disagreements may arise over security deposits, renovation costs, repairs, damaged items, outstanding rent, utility bills and even WhatsApp messages exchanged between the landlord and tenant.
The High Court decision in Siti Ramah Mohd Noor v Syed Faisal Shah bin Syed Gulzar Ali Shah [2026] CLJU 2284 provides a useful example of how the Malaysian courts may approach these disputes.
The case involved an appeal from a decision of the Shah Alam Magistrates’ Court. The tenant had succeeded in recovering renovation and repair costs, his security and utility deposits, and an overpaid water bill. The landlord appealed and also maintained various counterclaims against the tenant.
The High Court ultimately dismissed the landlord’s appeal in its entirety and ordered RM5,000 in costs to be paid to the tenant.
For landlords and tenants, the case highlights an important practical lesson: what happens during the tenancy, what the parties say to each other, what they document, and what they do immediately after the tenancy ends can become just as important as the tenancy agreement itself.
What Happened in This Tenancy Dispute?
The dispute arose from a tenancy between the plaintiff tenant and the defendant landlord.
One of the main areas of disagreement involved repair and upgrading works carried out at the property.
According to the tenant, he initially paid for the works himself. The arrangement between the parties was that the landlord would account for these expenses through discounts against the rent payable.
The landlord accepted that rental discounts had been given, but disputed that she was required to pay any further balance to the tenant.
The dispute subsequently expanded to include the return of the tenant’s deposits and the condition of the property when it was handed back to the landlord. The landlord alleged that the tenancy had been improperly terminated and sought additional rental and repair costs from the tenant.
Following a full trial, the Magistrates’ Court awarded the tenant:
RM20,950 for outstanding renovation and repair costs;
RM13,125 for the return of the security and utility deposits; and
RM233.70 for an overpaid water bill.
The landlord’s counterclaim was dismissed.
The landlord then appealed to the High Court.
The High Court Was Not Conducting a Second Trial
An important part of the High Court’s decision concerned the role of an appellate court.
An appeal does not necessarily mean that the High Court will reconsider everything from the beginning and decide which party’s story it prefers.
The High Court referred to the principle that an appellate court will generally not interfere with factual findings of the trial court unless those findings are shown to be plainly wrong.
In this case, the Magistrate had heard the witnesses, observed their evidence and compared their testimony against the documents and communications produced during trial.
The landlord’s appeal largely asked the High Court to prefer her interpretation of the evidence over that accepted by the Magistrate.
That was not enough.
The High Court found that the Magistrate had considered the evidence as a whole, including the parties’ communications, documents, handover evidence and evidence supporting the counterclaim.
There was therefore no sufficient reason for the High Court to interfere with the Magistrate’s factual findings.
Renovation Costs: Can a Tenant Recover Money Spent on a Rented Property?
One of the most interesting aspects of the case concerned RM20,950 claimed by the tenant for renovation and repair costs.
The landlord argued that the tenant had carried out the works voluntarily.
She also argued that the tenant had already received rental discounts and that there was no express contractual clause requiring her to make an additional cash payment of RM20,950.
The courts nevertheless accepted the tenant’s case.
The Magistrate found that the landlord knew about the works and had consented to them. The arrangement was that the tenant would initially pay for the works and the costs would subsequently be accounted for through rental discounts.
The tenant had advanced RM57,850 for the works.
The landlord had provided rental discounts amounting to RM36,900.
This left a balance of RM20,950.
The High Court rejected the argument that the absence of an express clause specifically requiring payment of RM20,950 necessarily defeated the claim.
Importantly, the Magistrate’s conclusion was not based simply upon an assumption that the landlord should pay.
The finding was supported by the parties’ actual arrangement, their rental structure, WhatsApp communications, oral evidence and documentary evidence.
For tenants and landlords, this demonstrates the importance of maintaining proper written records whenever one party agrees to pay for improvements, renovations or repairs.
Even where the arrangement is informal, messages, letters, invoices and the parties’ subsequent conduct may become extremely important evidence.
WhatsApp Messages Can Become Important Evidence in a Tenancy Dispute
Modern tenancy disputes are increasingly documented through WhatsApp rather than formal letters.
This case is a useful illustration.
WhatsApp communications were considered when determining both the renovation arrangement and whether the tenant had wrongfully left the property.
The landlord had sent messages indicating, in substance, that she would rather have the house empty than continue arguing, that the tenancy had already expired, and that it would be better for the tenant to find another property.
The tenant then asked whether the landlord was asking him to move out despite their alleged agreement to extend the tenancy.
The landlord did not clearly deny that interpretation.
The Magistrate was entitled to consider the ordinary meaning of these communications.
This became important because the landlord later claimed RM49,000 in alleged outstanding rental on the basis that the tenant had wrongfully vacated before the expiry of an extended tenancy.
The counterclaim failed.
The court did not consider the tenant’s eventual departure in isolation. It considered what the landlord herself had communicated before the tenant moved out.
The practical lesson is straightforward.
Landlords and tenants should assume that important WhatsApp messages concerning termination, repairs, rent reductions, extensions, deposits and handover may eventually be produced in court.
Casual wording can have serious consequences.
Can a Landlord Refuse to Return a Security Deposit?
Another major issue involved RM13,125 in security and utility deposits.
The landlord argued that the tenant was not entitled to recover the deposits because the tenant had allegedly failed to give sufficient notice before leaving and because repairs were allegedly required after the property was handed back.
The courts rejected those arguments.
One significant problem was that the landlord’s pleaded case for withholding the deposits was substantially based on alleged damage and repair costs.
The specific argument that the deposits could be forfeited under Clause 7.5 of the tenancy agreement had not been properly pleaded as a defence to the tenant’s deposit claim.
This is important because parties are generally expected to set out their case in their pleadings.
A party should not conduct a case on one basis and subsequently attempt to rely on a materially different argument during trial or appeal.
Landlords Should Document Damage Immediately After Handover
The condition of the property when possession was returned was also crucial.
The Magistrate accepted evidence that the premises had been returned in good condition.
Importantly, the landlord had not made a clear and contemporaneous demand identifying the alleged damage or explaining what amounts would be deducted from the tenant’s deposits within a reasonable time.
The High Court regarded this omission as material.
The Court observed that a landlord intending to retain deposits because of alleged damage would ordinarily be expected to notify the tenant of the damage relied upon and the proposed deductions.
This is an important practical point for both sides.
Where a landlord alleges that a tenant damaged the property, the landlord should consider documenting the condition of the property immediately during or after handover.
Photographs, videos, joint inspection records, messages to the tenant, quotations and invoices may become critical evidence.
Similarly, tenants should consider taking photographs or videos of the property when returning possession.
Waiting until months later to raise complaints may create evidential difficulties.
Producing an Invoice Does Not Automatically Prove a Repair Claim
The landlord counterclaimed RM12,551 for repair works.
That claim was dismissed.
The High Court explained that the landlord had to prove several things:
the alleged damage existed;
the tenant caused the damage;
the repair work was necessary; and
the amount claimed was reasonable.
Simply producing photographs or invoices was not necessarily sufficient.
There had to be evidence connecting the alleged damage to the tenant and connecting the claimed expenditure to the necessary repairs.
The landlord also did not call the relevant contractor or the maker of the invoices.
The Court considered that such evidence could have been important in establishing what damage existed, what work was required, why the work was necessary and whether the amount charged was reasonable.
This distinction is particularly important in rental property disputes.
An invoice may prove that someone issued an invoice.
It does not necessarily prove that the tenant caused the problem stated in that invoice.
Replacement of a Washing Machine Was Also Not Proven
The landlord also claimed RM3,499 for a washing machine.
This claim failed.
The landlord did not sufficiently establish that the washing machine had originally been supplied in working condition, that the tenant had caused it to stop working through a breach of the tenancy, or that the replacement amount represented the proper loss recoverable from the tenant.
A replacement price or an internet quotation was insufficient by itself.
This is especially relevant to disputes involving appliances and furniture.
If an appliance stops functioning after several years, the question is not necessarily simply: “How much does a new one cost?”
Questions may arise as to its original condition, age, ordinary wear and tear, the cause of the damage and the proper amount of loss.
Curtain Replacement Costs Were Not Automatically Recoverable Either
The landlord additionally claimed RM3,253.85 for replacement curtains.
Again, the claim failed.
The Court noted that the landlord needed to establish what curtains had originally been supplied, what was damaged or missing, whether the tenant was responsible, and whether the full replacement amount was legally recoverable.
The Magistrate was entitled to conclude that this burden had not been discharged.
The broader practical point is that a landlord making a claim against a tenant should be able to connect each claimed loss to evidence.
A list of replacement items alone may not be enough.
What About a Letter Marked “Without Prejudice”?
Another interesting point concerned a letter dated 14 October 2019 which had been marked “without prejudice”.
The landlord argued against the use of this letter.
The High Court held that simply placing the words “without prejudice” on a document did not automatically make the document inadmissible for every possible purpose.
The purpose for which the document was being relied upon remained important.
In this case, the letter recorded the tenant’s position that RM57,850 had been advanced, RM36,900 had been accounted for through rental discounts and RM20,950 remained outstanding.
The Magistrate did not treat this letter as a separate contract creating a new obligation.
Instead, it formed part of the documentary history surrounding the parties’ arrangement.
The landlord’s objection to the letter also faced another problem: the objection had not been properly pleaded and had only been raised later.
For litigants, this case is therefore a reminder that merely typing “without prejudice” at the top of a document does not necessarily answer every question about whether that document can ever be referred to in subsequent proceedings.
The circumstances and purpose for which the communication is relied upon remain important.
Why Pleadings Matter in Malaysian Court Proceedings
A recurring issue throughout the decision was the importance of pleadings.
Pleadings generally refer to formal court documents in which each party states the material basis of its claim or defence.
The High Court referred to authorities explaining that pleadings define the boundaries of the parties’ respective cases.
This allows each side to know the case it must answer.
A party should not ordinarily proceed through litigation on one case and subsequently introduce a materially different case after the opposing party has already conducted its evidence on another basis.
This principle affected, among other things, the landlord’s reliance on Clause 7.5 and objections concerning the letter dated 14 October 2019.
For laypersons, the lesson is that litigation is not simply about whether you believe you have a good argument.
The argument also has to be properly placed before the Court.
Contemporary Evidence Can Be More Persuasive Than Later Explanations
Another important theme running throughout the judgment was the significance of contemporaneous evidence.
Contemporaneous evidence simply means evidence created at or around the time the events actually happened.
Examples include:
WhatsApp conversations during the tenancy;
letters exchanged at the time;
photographs taken during handover;
rent records;
invoices;
communications concerning renovations; and
messages complaining about damage immediately after possession is returned.
The Magistrate had compared the witnesses’ oral evidence against this type of contemporaneous material.
The High Court found that this was a proper approach.
The Magistrate had also found that the landlord changed positions and gave contradictory evidence when confronted with contemporaneous documents. The High Court found no sufficient reason to interfere with that credibility assessment.
This illustrates why documents generated during the tenancy can become extremely valuable if litigation eventually occurs.
What Can Malaysian Landlords Learn From This Case?
Landlords should consider keeping a proper record from the beginning of the tenancy until final handover.
Where repair or renovation arrangements are agreed, the terms should preferably be confirmed in writing.
If rental discounts are being given in exchange for expenditure incurred by a tenant, both parties should clearly record how much has been spent, how much has been credited against rental and whether any balance remains payable.
At the end of the tenancy, a proper inspection should ideally be carried out.
If damage is alleged, the landlord should consider promptly identifying the relevant damage, communicating it to the tenant and explaining any proposed deduction from the security deposit.
Where repair costs are subsequently claimed, evidence connecting the tenant to the damage may be as important as the invoice showing the amount spent.
What Can Malaysian Tenants Learn From This Case?
Tenants should likewise maintain records throughout the tenancy.
Where the landlord approves repairs or renovation works, verbal approval alone creates unnecessary risk.
Confirming the arrangement through WhatsApp, email or another written communication may later become important evidence.
Before returning the property, tenants should consider documenting its condition through photographs or videos.
Where possession is being returned because of communications from the landlord, those communications should also be preserved.
Finally, if deposits are not returned, the tenant should request a clear explanation of the deductions and supporting documents.
Five Key Legal Lessons From the Case
First, an appeal is not simply a second opportunity to conduct the entire trial again. A party challenging factual findings generally has to demonstrate a proper basis for appellate intervention.
Second, parties are generally bound by the cases they have pleaded. Important arguments should be properly raised in the pleadings rather than introduced belatedly.
Third, the actual conduct and communications between a landlord and tenant can become highly relevant when determining what arrangement existed between them.
Fourth, a landlord claiming repair costs must do more than produce an invoice. The landlord may also have to establish the damage, the tenant’s responsibility for it, the necessity of the repair and the amount of the resulting loss.
Fifth, contemporaneous evidence such as WhatsApp messages, photographs, letters and handover communications can have considerable evidential value.
The High Court’s Final Decision
The High Court concluded that the Magistrate had properly considered the competing evidence and had not committed an appealable error of fact or law.
The award of RM20,950 for renovation and repair costs was maintained.
The tenant’s RM13,125 security and utility deposits remained refundable.
The award of RM233.70 for the overpaid water bill was also maintained.
The landlord’s counterclaims for alleged outstanding rental, repairs, washing machine costs and curtain costs remained dismissed.
The landlord’s appeal was therefore dismissed in its entirety, with RM5,000 in costs awarded to the tenant. The High Court’s decision was dated 3 July 2026.
Conclusion
Siti Ramah Mohd Noor v Syed Faisal Shah bin Syed Gulzar Ali Shah demonstrates how quickly an ordinary tenancy can develop into complicated litigation involving deposits, renovation expenses, rental discounts, alleged repairs, appliances and disputed termination.
For both landlords and tenants, documentation is critical.
The tenancy agreement remains important, but it may not be the only evidence considered by the Court. WhatsApp messages, letters, payment records, photographs, invoices and the parties’ conduct may all assist the Court in deciding what actually happened.
Perhaps the most practical lesson from the case is that parties should document disputes when they arise rather than attempting to reconstruct the events months or years later.
A clear written record made at the relevant time can make a significant difference if the tenancy dispute eventually reaches court.
Written on: 21st September 2026, Monday
Contact JY Ko Advocates & Solicitors to make an appointment today!
🌐 Call us: +6017.6965.966 (Call / WhatsApp)
📩 Email Us: nick@jykolaw.com
Disclaimer: The above proposition is subject to actual facts and circumstances and shall never be referred as the actual law without seeking legal advice. Consult us for more information!