Paws off! Shah Alam High Court rules condo management cannot impose blanket pet bans

SHAH ALAM, Oct 30 — The High Court here today ruled that a joint management body (JMB) cannot impose a blanket ban on keeping pets in private residential units through its house rules.

In a statement, lawyers Rajesh Nagarajan and Sachpreetraj Singh Sohanpal, who represented former national hurdler Noraseela Mohd Khalid, said the court partially allowed her application against the JMB of Shang Villa Condominium, declaring that House Rule 9.0 could not be used to prohibit her from keeping her three cats in her residential unit.

They said the court ruled that the mere presence of pets in a residential unit did not constitute a breach of house rules and that any enforcement action must be based on By-law 14 of the Strata Management (Maintenance and Management) Regulations 2015 and supported by evidence.

“The court decided that there is no blanket prohibition. House Rule 9.0 cannot be used to prohibit or penalise Ms Noraseela merely for keeping her three cats; Enforcement must be evidence-based.

“There must be a factual basis connecting the particular animal to an alleged nuisance, danger or other prohibited circumstance,” the statement said.

The lawyers said the court also found that general complaints about animals were insufficient, as the evidence did not establish that Noraseela’s cats were responsible for the incidents cited by the JMB.

They said evidence from a neighbour supported Noraseela’s account that the cats were properly cared for, while veterinary certificates indicated that they were in good health.

The court also declared invalid and unenforceable the provisions of House Rule 9.0 that allowed animals to be removed from common property without notifying their owners and excluded liability for any resulting loss, insofar as they bypassed the requirements, notice procedures and safeguards under By-law 14.

“This judgment confirms that a JMB is not above the law. House rules cannot be used to circumvent statutory safeguards or to create powers the legislation does not confer. The law regulates irresponsible conduct. It does not authorise discrimination against responsible pet owners.

“Legitimate complaints about animals must be addressed, and this decision does not stand in the way of that. But management must act on evidence, not on a presumption that every pet is a nuisance,” the statement said.

In a document shared with the media, Noraseela, in her application contested the validity of House Rule 9.0, arguing that it contradicted the Strata Management Act 2013 (SMA 2013), which allows residents to keep pets subject to reasonable regulations to prevent nuisance, danger or annoyance.

She argued that Section 70(2) of the Act prohibited house rules that were inconsistent with its provisions, while Section 150 did not empower the Joint Management Body (JMB) to impose a blanket ban on pets but only to regulate their keeping for management purposes.

Noraseela therefore contended that House Rule 9.0 was unlawful and invalid as it went beyond the powers provided under the Act.

She also argued that the blanket ban under House Rule 9.0 was excessive and disproportionate as it applied to all residents without requiring evidence of nuisance or harm, claiming that it violated the principle of proportionality under Article 8 of the Federal Constitution and interfered with her right to enjoy and use her property under Article 13. — Bernama

RM3 for extra soup? Labuan eatery compounded for failing to display charge on menu

Foreign investments should deliver more opportunities for Malaysian SMEs, says Steven Sim

Eleventh-hour boost for MCA: Perikatan returns Kota Laksamana, bringing Melaka seat tally to four

莎阿南，10月30日讯——莎阿南高等法院今日裁定，联合管理机构（JMB）不能通过房屋规章全面禁止在私人住宅单位饲养宠物。

代表前国家跨栏运动员诺拉西拉·穆罕默德·哈立德的律师拉杰什·纳加拉詹和萨奇普里特拉杰·辛格·索汉帕尔在一份声明中表示，法院部分支持了她针对尚维拉公寓联合管理机构的申请，宣布房屋规则 9.0 不能用来禁止她在自己的住宅单元内饲养三只猫。

他们表示，法院裁定，住宅单元内饲养宠物本身并不构成违反房屋规则，任何强制执行措施都必须依据 2015 年分契式物业管理（维护和管理）条例第 14 条细则，并有证据支持。

法院裁定，不存在一概禁止的情况。房屋规则9.0不能仅仅因为诺拉西拉女士饲养了三只猫就禁止或惩罚她；执法必须以证据为基础。

声明称：“必须有事实依据将该特定动物与所指控的滋扰、危险或其他禁止情况联系起来。”

律师表示，法院还认为，关于动物的一般性投诉不足以定罪，因为证据并未证明诺拉西拉的猫应对牙买加警察部队所列举的事件负责。

他们表示，邻居提供的证据支持了诺拉西拉的说法，即这些猫得到了妥善照顾，而兽医证明也表明它们身体健康。

法院还宣布房屋规则 9.0 中允许在不通知其主人的情况下将动物从公共财产中移走并免除由此造成的任何损失责任的规定无效且无法执行，因为这些规定绕过了细则 14 中的要求、通知程序和保障措施。

“这项判决确认了联合管理机构并非凌驾于法律之上。房屋规章不能被用来规避法定保障措施或创设法律未赋予的权力。法律规范的是不负责任的行为，而不是歧视负责任的宠物主人。”

声明称：“有关动物的合理投诉必须得到处理，这项决定不会妨碍处理此类投诉。但管理层必须根据证据采取行动，而不是假定每只宠物都是滋扰者。”

在与媒体分享的一份文件中，诺拉西拉在申请中对房屋规则 9.0 的有效性提出质疑，认为该规则与 2013 年分层管理法 (SMA 2013) 相抵触，该法允许居民在合理的规定下饲养宠物，以防止滋扰、危险或烦扰。

她认为该法第 70(2) 条禁止与该法规定不符的房屋规则，而第 150 条并未授权联合管理机构 (JMB) 全面禁止饲养宠物，而只是出于管理目的对宠物的饲养进行规范。

因此，Noraseela 认为，议会规则 9.0 是非法的、无效的，因为它超出了该法案规定的权力范围。

她还辩称，根据房屋规则9.0制定的全面禁令过于严苛且不成比例，因为它适用于所有居民，且无需提供滋扰或损害的证据。她声称，该禁令违反了联邦宪法第8条规定的比例原则，并干涉了她根据第13条享有和使用其财产的权利。——马新社

加一份汤要3令吉？纳闽一家餐馆因菜单上未标明费用而被罚款

史蒂文·西姆表示，外国投资应该为马来西亚中小企业带来更多机遇。

马华最后时刻提振：国盟回归哥打拉克萨马纳，使马六甲席位增至四个