A lot of people like to take the easy way out of things without realising the consequences. I have seen the consequences myself, in a case where the tenant sued the landlord for unlawful interference with use and enjoyment of premises by cutting off electricity and water. The tenant successfully obtained an injunction to compel the landlord to restore the utilities. The Judge held that the fact that the tenant had arrears of rental was a separate issue altogether and does not justify the interruption of supply of utilities to the premises. The best part was, the landlord was the wife of a lawyer, who acted for her in the suit and still lost the injunction. Although the case was later settled, a lot of time and money was wasted to defend the injunction.

That the consequence which a landlord must face if he decides to use self-help measures.
To be fair, I don't think the moderators would delete or take action against those seemingly illegal or wrong advice. In fact, how would the moderators even know, from a STRICTLY legal standpoint, as to whether the advice is accurate or otherwise? In fact, the particular TS ought to know and judge for himself whether the advice is good or otherwise. From the language and terms used, from the background of the forummer posting it. Ultimately, if that TS is really looking for genuine advice, go seek an ACTUAL lawyer for some proper consultation. They are only looking for trouble if they put their trust in various strangers giving advice using a pseudonym and shielding behind an avatar.

The fact that the mods have allowed Lawyer's Corner to be a pinned topic is a good thing. It is a one-stop centre for legal advice. Yet, some folks deem it more befitting to open their own topics and ask legal advice from the general public. To expect the mods to then 'look out' for idiots giving misleading advice would be stretching it too far as the TS ought to know better since there is a dedicated thread to seek legal advice from.

Like the saying goes, 'you can lead a horse to water but you can't force it to drink'.

I'm sure there's the silent majority who reads your advice and understands accordingly. So, do keep on plodding along and keep up the good work, mate 

Wodering, in order to be avoid being sue for cutting water and electricity.

So , if we included this term and condition. Can we escape?
" Upon failing to make payment of rental from tenant  to Landlord for more than 30 days. Landlord can cutting electicity and water to the said property without notice to tenant "

I was doing 3 months rental for some of my units before and the nasty management tried to shut us down. I won't go into details what happened thereafter, but we stood our grounds and won. It is not easy to define what is commercial. I have recently purchase quite a number of units which I intend to turn into a sort of mini hotel with daily rate due to the location of the high rise. I am likely to face problems but heck, since my group of people own a few floors, chances of us winning the AGM is higher than those against. The sad reality of a poorly set up Strata Title Act for Malaysia.

It only takes one big criminal case (or one explosion) to bring the condo's name down.

Actually there are clear cut case precedents on dealing with deliquent tenants and I have been promoting the legal way. Though I have never said that that is the most efficient way. I believe in such public forum, we should promote what is right rather than what is against the law, especially when Jalsrix mentioned that he has asked his lawyers, and some readers might interprete it as he had already done his research and advised accordingly. Such people are dangerous. He has failed to give the name of his lawyers and cases which supported his claims.

Like I have said, and I think Dario had pointed out, 1 day rental does not constitute anything illegal as there is no specific law in dealing with it. If it is illegal, then renting out the property for 12 months is illegal too as it is on a commercial basis.

I think Dario had pointed out the cases where self help will only land the landlord in trouble. And it is a common knowledge among lawyers with some sense of the law that self help will land the landlord in trouble if the tenant happened to be knowledgeable about the law.

Let me ask you, is stealing RM1 a lesser crime than someone stealing RM100?

1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 1 year make no difference at all. Like Dario had pointed out, a tenant who is on a 2 year contract might be a nuisance and the one on a 1 day contract might be an angel. So which tenant is better?

Like my previous stand, I don't mind good debate and occasional bad advices. I can take and counter those. But when people like Jalsrix comes online and claimed that his lawyers have given such "illegal" advices and to date refuse to name his lawyers, it is dangerous. Newbies might pick the easiest way out since those advices are given by lawyers and because Michaellee is NOT a lawyer, hence his opinion will weigh a lot less. I believe dangerous people to society should be weeded out especially those who stubbornly thinks they are right and continued to use my lawyer says (and yet he got cheated by agents and bankers).

To another poster question about controlling crowd.

how is controlling daily rent tenant any diff than friends of tenant visiting?  If you can't control visitors coming in, then one should focus on fixing that issue first.

one should look at the problem, rather than the tenant's period of stay.  Like another poster has stated, long term tenants could cause more problem too.  So, the problem is managing the building, not managing the rental type.

would you prefer a yearly bad tenant living across you or a daily bad tenant across you?  w/ daily, you might be annoyed few times a year, but w/ long term, you might be annoyed few days a week! 

Don't just w/o investigation & facts, claim short term renters as bad!

if you can tighten the security to screen every visitor, then you have better security regardless of whether he is visitor, daily renter, owner, long term renter.