Charges

Topic 6: Charges

6. Introduction

• Types of security transactions:

  • Charges: recognized as registrable dealing under NLC.
  • Lien: recognized as dealing under NLC.
  • Jual Janji (Malaysia): Not recognized by NLC, but courts recognize its effect as a pure contract of sale.
  • Mortgage (English Law).

• Land Charge (Gadaian) is different from Company Charge.

6.1 Definition

• Generally, a charge is a transaction where the registered proprietor of alienated land or a lease conveys it as security for the repayment of any debt or payment of a sum other than a debt, or any annuity or other periodical payment, to a third party.

• S 5 of the NLC defines "charge" as a registered charge.

• S 243 of the NLC states that every charge created under the Act takes effect upon registration, making the land or lease liable as security.

• Chargor: The owner of the land/lease.

• Chargee: A third party, such as a bank.

• Types of charges:

  1. First-party charge: The chargor is the borrower.
  2. Third-party charge: The chargor is not the borrower.

• A charge constitutes an interest in land.

• MBF Finance Bhd. v Teguh Consolidated Sdn. Bhd.:

  • The court held that once a charge is registered, the chargor must comply with it.
  • The chargee can take necessary steps to recover the sum due upon the chargor's failure to comply with the charge.

Charge (Gadaian) vs. Mortgage (Cagaran)

• Kimlin Housing Development Sdn. Bhd. v Bank Bumiputra Bhd.:
  • Mortgage in common law refers to a transaction where the mortgagee's rights and powers are incidental to the legal or equitable estate vested in them as mortgagee.
  • Statutory charge in NLC refers to a transaction where the chargee's rights and power are not derived from the charged land but from the provisions in NLC.
  • Such right is enforceable by proceedings in court to obtain a judicial sale.

6.1.1 What Can Be Charged

• Powers of charging: S 241 of NLC.

• Restrictions: S 241(3) of NLC.

• Syariah principle must comply with NLC: S 241(5) of NLC.

• Financial institution: S 241(6) of NLC.

• Types of land that can be charged:

  1. Title owned by an individual or company - S 43 of NLC.
  2. Land held under final title and qualified title - S 77.
  3. Land or parcel held under strata title - S 256(1)(c) & S 260(1)(c).
  4. Land registered under Land Office or Registry - S 77 of NLC.
  5. Alienated land not more than 99 years - S 76 of NLC.

6.1.2 Ways of Creating a Charge

• Form 16A or Form 16B.
• Creation of charge is subject to s 241(3) & (4).

6.1.3 Creation of Second Charge

• S 241(6) of NLC allows the creation of second and subsequent charges.
• The first registered charge has priority in repayment.
• The first registered charge holds the IDT, and S 244(2) of NLC allows the Registry to use the IDT to register second and subsequent charges.
• The first registered charge has priority over all later registered charges, subject to voluntary postponement of priority.
• The priority of a charge can be postponed using Form 16C.
• S 247(1) of NLC: Any charge may be postponed to any subsequent charge by an instrument in Form 16C.
• S 247(2) of NLC: Charges related to any instrument of postponement rank in the order specified from the registration date.
• "Tracking" and "consolidation" also affect the priority of charge but are enforceable only by complying with S 245 and S 246 of NLC.
• S 245 of NLC: Restriction on consolidation.
• S 246 of NLC: Tacking of further advances.

6.2 Effect of a Registered Charge

• R & I Securities v Golden Castle Finance: If a charge is not registered, the chargee is not protected under NLC and cannot enjoy the rights under Part 16 of NLC in the event of default of payment by the chargor.
• The chargee enjoys indefeasibility of interest under S 340(1) of NLC.

6.2.1 Rights of the Parties

1. Real right and personal right for chargee:
   • Order for sale.
   • Taking possession of land.
   • Appointing a receiver (if the chargor is a corporation).
2. Express agreement between chargor and chargee.
3. Implied: S 249, 250, 251 & 218(2) of NLC.
4. Other relevant provisions: S 218(2), 215 & 216, 244 of NLC.

6.3 Effect of an Unregistered Charge – Equitable Charge

• Every charge must be registered; unregistered charges are generally invalid.
• If a charge is not registered, the rights and liabilities of the chargor and chargee, including remedies of sale and repossession, cannot be enforced.
• However, an equitable charge is an exception.
• Oriental Bank v Chup Seng Restaurant (Butterworth) Sdn. Bhd.:
  • The court held that a charge must be registered in its prescribed form before a chargee can enforce the right of foreclosure.
  • A charge instrument executed but not yet presented for registration is regarded as an equitable charge.
  • NLC does not prohibit the creation of an equitable charge.
• Malayan Banking Bhd. v Zahari bin Ahmad [1988] 2 MLJ 135:
  • The court held that when there is no separate title and charge issued, a loan agreement and a deed of assignment entered into to secure a loan will be regarded as an equitable charge.
• Bank Pembangunan dan Infrastruktur Malaysia Bhd. v Omar Hj Ahmad:
  • The court held that since there was an antecedent agreement between the bank and the chargor to have the land charged to the bank as security, the wrong attestation thereof would not ipso facto negate the creation of an equitable third-party charge over the land in favour of the bank.

6.4 Default and Remedies

• Real right and personal right for chargee:
  • Order for sale.
  • Taking possession of land.
  • Appointing receiver (if chargor is a corporation).

6.4.1 Order for Sale

• ss 253-269 NLC.
• Form 16D pursuant to s 254; or Form 16E pursuant to s 255.
• Two sets of procedures for the chargee to enforce the remedy by way of sale on the ground of the chargor’s default, depending on the title type.
  • RT: ss 256, Order 83 Rules of Court 2012 (formerly RHC) – High Court.
  • LOT: s 260 Land Administrator.

6.5 Order for Sale: Foreclosure

• An act of chargee to sell land by way of auction to secure payment that is due from the chargor in satisfaction of the debt owing to the chargee.

• S 253 of NLC states:

  • (1) The provisions of this Chapter shall have effect for enabling any chargee to obtain the sale of the land or lease to which the charge relates in the event of a breach by the chargor of any of the agreements on his part expressed or implied therein.
  • (2) The powers conferred by this Chapter shall be additional to those conferred by Chapter 4, and no chargee shall be debarred from exercising them by reason of the fact that he has already taken action under that Chapter.
  • (3) In this Chapter:
    • “bidder” means only one natural person, one corporation or one single body and does not include the chargor.
    • “chargee” includes a financial institution.
    • “financial institution” means any licensed bank, licensed finance company or licensed merchant bank as defined in the Banking and Financial Institutions Act 1989 [Act 372], a bank under the Islamic Banking Act 1983 [Act 276], any co-operative society carrying on the business of financing and any statutory body established under any Federal or State law acting as chargee under this Act; and
    • “purchaser” means the successful bidder.
  • (4) For the purposes of this Chapter, the chargor or chargee may appoint any person or body to perform his duties or take action on his behalf, and notice of any such appointment shall be given in writing to the Registrar of the Court or the Land Administrator, as the case may be.

• Kandiah Peter v Public Bank Bhd.:

  • The court held that a chargee's application for an order for sale in foreclosure proceedings does not commence an action but merely enforces their right by exercising a statutory remedy against the defaulting chargor.

• Kimlin Housing Development Sdn. Bhd. v Bank Bumiputra:

  • The court held that the chargee does not have the power of sale by way of debenture or power of attorney; instead, they must bring a proceeding to obtain a judicial sale as per the NLC procedure.
  • The court also stated the 9 rights of the chargor:
    1. Notice must be given in Form 16D within a month / Form 16E where the principal is payable on demand.
    2. An order of sale will only be granted if the statutory requirements have been met.
    3. The chargor has an opportunity to show 'cause to the contrary'.
    4. The order of sale must include a sale by public auction within a month from the order, at a reserve price fixed by the Registrar of the Court, and the total sum payable under the charge at the date of the order.
    5. The chargor has the right to be served with a copy of the order for sale for advertisement. The chargee is obliged to prepare the condition of sale and to deliver the IDT to the court.
    6. The chargor has the advantage of the sale being effected under the direction of an officer of the court who may seek the assistance of a licensed auctioneer.
    7. The chargor can stop the sale by tendering the sum due under the charge to the Registry/ Land Office before the fall of the hammer.
    8. If the purchaser did not complete the contract on the due date and seeks an extension from the court, the chargor has the right to be heard.
    9. The chargor has the right to set aside the order for sale if the sale has been conducted fraudulently/ collusively/ improperly to the prejudice of the chargor.

6.5.1 Notice of Demand: Service of Default Notice, and Effect Thereof (Form 16D)

• S 254 of NLC states:

  • (1) Where, in the case of any charge, any breach of agreement mentioned in subsection 253(1) has continued for at least one month (or an alternative period specified in the charge, not less than one month), the chargee may serve on the chargor a notice in Form 16D:
    • (a) specifying the breach in question;
    • (b) requiring it to be remedied within one month of the date on which the notice is served, or such alternative period as may be specified in the charge which shall not be less than one month; and
    • (c) warning the chargor that, if the notice is not complied with, the chargee will take proceedings to obtain an order for sale.
  • (2) Where, after the service of any such notice, the charged land or lease becomes vested in any other person or body, the notice shall be as valid and effectual against that person or body as it was against the person or body on whom it was served.
  • (3) If, at the expiry of the period specified in any such notice, the breach in question has not been remedied:
    • (a) the whole sum secured by the charge shall (if it has not already done so) become due and payable to the chargee; and
    • (b) the chargee may apply for an order for sale in accordance with the following provisions of this Chapter:
    • Provided that paragraph (a) shall not apply to any charge to secure the payment of an annuity or other periodic sum.

• Special provision with respect to sums payable on demand (Form 16E):

  • S 255 of NLC states:
    • (1) Where the principal sum secured by any charge is payable by the chargor on demand, the chargee may make the demand by a notice in Form 16E. In that event, if the sum in question is not paid to him within one month of the date on which the notice is served, the chargee may apply forthwith for an order for sale without being required to serve a notice in Form 16D under subsection 254(1).
    • (2) Subsection 254(2) shall apply to notices in Form 16E as they apply to notices in Form 16D.

• Cases on content of notice:

  • Co-operative Central Bank Ltd v Meng Kuang Properties Bhd:
    • The court held that a notice of demand that does not state the precise sum owing can still be valid, provided that the chargor is given a reasonable opportunity to comply with it and if the notice does not demand payment of something to which the chargee is not entitled.
  • Standard Chartered Bank Malaysia Bhd v Tunku Mudzaffar Bin Tunku Mustapha:
    • The court held that the service of notice is mandatory, and it must be served to the correct person and at the correct address.

• Issue 1: Is one month's notice mandatory?

  • After NLC 2020, S 254(1) states that the notice can only be served after the breach has continued for at least one month.

• Issue 2: Will service of the wrong notice be a bar to the chargee’s application for an order for sale?

  • Jacob v Overseas Chinese Banking Corp, Ipoh (wrong notice not fatal):
    • The court, referring to S 62 of the Interpretation Act 1967, held that the intention of Parliament is to ensure that the chargor has knowledge of the notice specifying the breach. Therefore, the issuance of the wrong notice is not fatal and is valid.
    • The court held that, in the case where there was a demand for payment of principal and interest, Form 16E as well as Form 16D can be used, and the demand may be made by either form.

• Issue 3: Whether the chargee can impose other charges or something not provided in the charge agreement?

  • Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. v Meng Kuang Properties Bhd.:
    • The court dismissed the application for an order for sale since there was negligence on the part of the chargee to correctly demand payment of default interest.
  • Perwira Affin Bank Bhd v Saad Bin Abdullah & Anor:
    • The court held that the accuracy of the amount in the notice in Form 16D can be evidence to show whether the Form 16D is valid.
    • The court found that the chargee had failed to issue Form 16D based on the term of the charge. As such, the notice in Form 16D is invalid.

• Order for sale can be made to:

  • If registry title, the High Court - S 256(1)(a)-(c)
    • S 256(1) of NLC states that this section applies to land held under:
      • (a) Registry title;
      • (b) the form of qualified title corresponding to Registry title; or
      • (c) subsidiary title,
    • and to the whole of any undivided share in, or any lease of, any such land.
  • If land office title, the Land Office - S 260(1)(a)-(c)
    • S 260(1) of NLC states that this section applies to land held under:
      • (a) Land Office title;
      • (b) the form of qualified title corresponding to Land Office title; or
      • (c) subsidiary title,
    • and to the whole of any undivided share in, or any lease of, any such land.

1. High Court

   • Order 83 of Rules of Court 2012 (cases not complying with this order will be struck off).
   • S 256(2) of NLC states that any application for an order for sale under this Chapter by a chargee of any such land or lease shall be made to the Court in accordance with the provisions in that behalf of any law for the time being in force relating to civil procedure.

2. Land Office

   • Form 16G.
   • S 260(2) of NLC states that any application for an order for sale under this Chapter by a chargee of any such land or lease shall be made to the Land Administrator in Form 16G.

6.5.2. Powers of Court

• If land is under Registry title, application for an order for sale shall be made to court by virtue of S 256 of NLC as well as Order 83 of Rules of Courts 2012.

• UAB v Elgi Marka Sdn Bhd:

  • It was held that the court has no concurrent jurisdiction to approve an application for an order for sale if the land is under Land Office title.

• Matters decided by the courts - S 257 of NLC.

• Other matters in respect of sale - S 258 - S 259.

• Notice of application - Order 83 of ROC.

• (a) Circumstances under which an Order for Sale will not be Granted – cause to contrary: s 256(3)

• S 256(3) of NLC states that on any such application, the Court shall order the sale of the land or lease to which the charge relates unless it is satisfied of the existence of cause to the contrary.

• Low Lee Lian v Ban Hin Lee Bank Bhd. [1997] 1 MLJ 77 FC:

  • Gopal Sri Ram CAJ listed the three circumstances where there is an existence of “cause to the contrary”:
    • (i) When a chargor was able to bring his case within any of the exceptions to the indefeasibility doctrine in s 340 NLC 1965 (defeasibility).
    • (ii) When a chargor could demonstrate that the chargee had failed to meet the conditions precedent for the making of an application for an order for sale (defect in procedure - must have major defect); and
    • (iii) When a chargor could demonstrate that the grant of an order for sale would be contrary to some rule of law or equity (contrary to rule of law or equity).

• Murugappa Chettiar v Letchumanan Chettiar:

  • If no cause to the contrary could be shown, the court would be obliged to make an order for sale.

• Ambank Bhd (successor in title ‘Arab-Malaysian Finance Bhd’) v Chidambara Nathan a/l MST Muthusamy & Anor:

  • The chargor bears the burden to prove the existence of cause to the contrary.

1. Defeasibility *Use back topic 2 cases

   • AmFinance Bhd v Lebik bt Haji Ali & Ors (forgery):
     • In this case, the plaintiff applied for an order for sale under S. 256 of NLC, but the court refused because the defendant successfully proved that the charge document was tainted with forgery.

2. Fail to meet condition precedent

   • Standard Chartered Bank Malaysia Bhd v Mohd Nazro bin Zulkipeli and another appeal:

     • It was held that an order of sale can be stopped when the chargor can show cause to the contrary by proving that the chargee had failed to meet the conditions precedent as required by NLC.
     • Here, the failure on the part of the chargor to serve notice in Form 16D would constitute cause to the contrary.

   • Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. v Meng Kuang Properties Bhd.

     • The court dismissed the application for an order for sale since there was negligence of the chargee to correctly demand for the payment of default interest.

3. Contrary to rule of law or equity

   • Limited application. Example: Where a purchaser has paid the full purchase price to the chargee and has taken possession, thus bringing into existence an equitable estate in his favour, and the chargee has recognized his rights and equitable estate, it is unconscionable for the chargee to enforce the security. As such, the order for sale would not be granted.

   • Kuching Plaza Sdn Bhd v Bank Bumiputra Malaysia Bhd and Another Appeal:

     • The Supreme Court rejected the application for an order of sale on the ground that the sale was against the rule of equity. If the order of sale was granted, there will be unfairness towards the parties who had the interest on land.

   • Keng Soon Finance Bhd. v MK Retnam Holdings Sdn. Bhd. & Anor [1989] 1 MLJ 457:

     • It was held that the principle of “contrary to some rule of law and equity” does not extend to cases where the court merely feels sorry for the borrower or because it regards the lender as arrogant, boorish, or unmannerly or because of the existence of prior unregistered claims. This means that order for sale cannot be rejected based on such grounds.

   • Arab-Malaysian Merchant Bank Bhd. v Silver Concept Sdn. Bhd. [2005] 5 MLJ 210:

     • The court held that the application of “cause to the contrary” under S 256(3) of NLC is different from Islamic financing.

• (b) Other important issues

  • S 253(2) of NLC allows the chargee to apply for an order for sale although the chargee has taken possession of the land.
  • Kandiah Peter v Public Bank Bhd:
    • The court held that the failure of the chargee to obtain an order for sale does not prohibit the chargee from taking action in personam against the chargor.

6.5.3 Powers of Land Administrator (Tay focus more on High Court)

• If the title is a Land Office title, an application for an order for sale shall be made to the Land Administrator.

• However, the power given to the LA is limited. LA can only grant order for sale when the charge is a registered charge and there is a default in payment.

• Form 16G - S 260(2) of NLC.

• Enquiry - S 261, 262.

• Gurpal Singh v Kananayer:

  • The court held that the LA, during the inquiry, shall not go behind the charge in view of S 340(1) of NLC, which is related to indefeasibility of title and interest. Instead, the LA shall only oblige to determine whether there is a default in payment in order for an order for sale to be granted.

• (a) Cause to the contrary

  • S 261(c) of NLC: The Land Administrator shall cause a summons to be served on the chargor, requiring him to appear at the enquiry and show cause why the order should not be made.
  • S 263(1) of NLC: The Land Administrator shall order the sale unless he is satisfied of the existence of cause to the contrary.
  • Government of Malaysia v Omar in Haji Ahmad:
    • It was held that after the enquiry had been concluded and the LA satisfied that there is no cause to the contrary, then an order for sale shall be granted.

• (b) Limited power of LA

  • Powers of LA - S 23 - S 39:
    1. S 33 of NLC states that, save in the special circumstances specified in section 34, a decision or order of the Land Administrator in any enquiry shall not be altered or added to except for the purpose of correcting verbal errors or remedying some accidental defect or omission not affecting a material part of the enquiry.
    2. Not allowed to grant an order other than order for sale.
    3. No power to hear appeal/objection on facts.
    4. Cannot fix reserved price arbitrarily when the order for sale receives no bid/offer. Must fix a reserved price lower than or similar to the first reserved price.

6.5.4. Other matters pertaining to order for sales

• 263 of NLC - Order for sale, and matters to be dealt with thereby.
• S 264 of NLC - Procedure prior to sale.
• S 264A - Postponement or cancellation of an order for sale by LA.
• S 265 - Procedure at sale.

6.5.5. Powers of Court/Land Administrator after the Granting of an Order for Sale

• Court

  • S 257(1) of NLC states that every order for sale made by the Court under section 256 shall be in Form 16H and shall:
    • (a) provide for the sale to be by public auction;
    • (b) require the sale to be held on, or as soon as may be after, a date specified therein, being a date not less than one month after the date on which the order is made;
    • (c) specify the total amount due to the chargee at the date on which the order is made;
    • (d) require the Registrar of the Court to fix a reserve price for the purpose of the sale, being a price equal to the estimated market value of the land or lease in question;
    • (e) specify that no bidder shall be allowed to bid in the sale unless the officer of the Court is satisfied that the bidder possesses, at the time of the sale, the sum equivalent to ten percentum of the reserve price specified under paragraph (d);
    • (f) specify that where the full amount of the purchase price is not paid after the fall of the hammer by the successful bidder, the sum specified in paragraph (e) shall be paid as a deposit to the chargee and forthwith credited into the account of the chargor pending the settlement of the balance of the purchase price;
    • (g) specify that the balance of the purchase price shall be settled on a date not later than one hundred and twenty days from the date of the sale and that there shall be no extension of the period so specified; and
    • (h) specify that where the balance of the purchase price is not settled on a date specified under paragraph (g), the sum paid as deposit under paragraph (f) to the chargee shall be forfeited and disposed of in the manner specified under section 267A.

• LA

  • S 263(1) of NLC.

• Can the court vary an order for sale after the order is made?

  • MUI Bank Bhd v Cheam Kim Yi (Beh Sai Ming, Intervener):
    • It was held that once an order for sale has been granted, drawn up, and perfected, the court is functus officio. This means that the court no longer has the power to re-examine the decision made.
  • M & J Frozen Food Sdn Bhd v Siland Sdn Bhd:
    • In this case, the purchaser wanted to apply for an extension of time to pay the chargee, but he failed to notify the chargor and chargee.
    • It was held that the court has the power to vary the order for sale or the terms and conditions made thereunder, as long as the court has taken into consideration the interests of the chargee and chargor and thinks it fair to do so.
    • However, such power shall not be exercised when there is an absence of and without service of the required notice on the chargor.

• Can LA make amendments to an order for sale?

  • Siland Sdn Bhd v M & J Frozen Food Sdn Bhd:
    • The court held that LA has no power to amend any order given after the sale.

6.6 Rights /Relief for the Chargor and Third Parties

• Right of the chargor to tender payment at any time before the sale

  • S 266(1) of NLC states that any chargor against whom an order for sale has been made under this Chapter may, at any time before the conclusion of the sale, tender the amounts specified in subsection (2) to the Registrar of the Court or, as the case may be, the Land Administrator (or, if the tender is made on the day fixed for the sale, to the officer having the direction thereof), and the order shall thereupon cease to have effect.
    • The chargor must make payment before the fall of the hammer. If the hammer had fallen, then the chargor can no longer claim back his land since the bona fide purchaser’s interest shall be safeguarded.
  • M & J Frozen Food Sdn Bhd v Siland Sdn Bhd:
    • The court held that the chargor may always have the proprietary right and right to pay up all moneys due under the charge and all expenses incurred before the conclusion of sale and registration of the purchaser.
    • The chargor has the right to intervene to set aside any sale of land on the ground of fraud, impropriety, or any breach of any statutory or contractual terms of the sale. Upon the chargor successfully proving his case and paying all the sum, the order for sale shall cease to have effect.
    • Kimlin case has criticized Chartered Bank v Packiri Maideen, which held that the chargor’s right to redeem the debt stopped when the application for auction is made to the court.
    • The Court can order cancel of sale made by LA if it does not comply with S 257(1).
  • Maimunah Bt Megat Montak v Maybank Finance Bhd:
    • The court will always have the power to cancel the auction made by LA if the auction does not comply with S 257(1) of NLC.

• Right of chargee

  • BBMB v Sun Chong Land Devt Sdn. Bhd.
    • The chargee is entitled to apply for an order for sale based on the provisions in NLC. If there is no existence of cause to the contrary, then the court may always order an order for sale for the charged land to be sold by way of public auction.

• Rights of third party (successful bidder/purchaser)

  • Perdana Properties Bhd. v Yong Chon:
    • The court held that after the purchaser had been granted the certificate of sale, the sale shall be registrable, and the certificate shall free the purchaser of any more liability.
    • This means that after the purchaser has bought the land, the chargor shall no longer have any right in the land.

6.7 Effect of Order for Sale

Certificate of sale:

• Certificate of sale in Form 16F - ordered by High Court: S 259(3)(a) of NLC.

• Certificate of sale in Form 16I - ordered by LA: S 265(4)(a) of NLC.

• Statement of payment due

  • S 266A of NLC

• Effects of sale

  • S 267(1) of NLC states that any certificate of sale given to a purchaser under subsection 259(3) or 265(4) in respect of any charged land or lease shall be treated for all the purposes of this Act as an instrument of dealing and shall be registrable accordingly under Part Eighteen; and, upon the registration thereof:
    • (a) the title or interest of the chargor shall pass to and vest in the purchaser, freed and discharged from all liability under the charge in question and any charge subsequent thereto; and
    • (b) subject to paragraph (2)(a), the relevant provisions of Part Fourteen shall apply as if the chargor had transferred the land or lease to the purchaser in accordance with the provisions of that Part.
  • S 267(2) of NLC states that notwithstanding that it was granted with the consent in writing of the chargee, as required by subsection 226(1), no tenancy exempt from registration granted by the chargor after the date of registration of the charge shall be binding on the purchaser unless, prior to the date of registration of the certificate of sale, the tenancy had become protected by an endorsement on the register document of title to the land pursuant to Chapter 7 of Part Eighteen.
  • S 267(3) of NLC states that subsection (2) shall have effect in addition to those of subsection 213(3), under which, by virtue of the fact that he claims through the chargee, the purchaser will not be bound by any tenancy granted by the chargor before the date of registration of the charge unless it had become protected by endorsement prior to that date.

• Effect on the tenancy without endorsement

  • Hotel Ambassador (M) Sdn Bhd v Seapower (M) Sdn Bhd:
    • The court held that the tenancy between the tenant and chargor is not binding on the purchaser who successfully purchases the land under an order for sale unless the tenancy is being protected by an endorsement