Macro Prosperity Sdn Bhd v. Cimb Bank Bhd [2017] 1 CLJ 708 MT:
“[45] This court cannot agree with the submission of the plaintiff that this provision means the plaintiff is entitled to double rental from the defendant for holding over after the expiry or determination of the tenancy. First this is because it was never the case that the defendant is a tenant... For the provision to apply, there must be a tenancy agreement involving the defendant. Second, there is no issue of holding over as the defendant is not a tenant as explained. In the first place holding over can only be applicable by the plain reading of this statutory provision if the defendant is a tenant. At the risk of repetition, the defendant is not a tenant. As such the defendant is not liable to pay double rental.”
