Did you read the progress of the discussion or did you just read that particular quote of mine? Start frm where Backkom put in the relevant clause of the Act. Look at the clause where it states that an exemption to definition of a Hotel is where the owner gives put the premises on a landloard-tenant relationship. Now, in order to prove such relationship, you need to have a tenancy agreement, even if it is for a day. Otherwise, cakap mulut is of no use or else everyone can cakap mulut that he is giving it out on a daily tenancy, etc.

Next, the agreement must be stamped, in order for it to have legal basis. An unstamped document is of no value when authorities come knocking on the door to check. Likewise to cakap mulut, an unstamped tenancy agreement lends you little credibility to honestly show a genuine landlord-tenancy relationship. I'm not saying that it is illegal to have an unstamped agreement. No one is going to fine you for not having an unstamped agreement per se. It does not have strong evidentiary value. Don't confuse it with income tax on tenancy rental. That is a different issue altogether.

What I'm trying to say is - don't mix up the terms tenancy,renting out and commercial. It is considered that you are dealing it on a commercial basis as an unlicensed hotel unless can show that your case falls under one of the exceptions under the secton of the Act as quoted earlier. Read it again. Nothing else matters.

Utimately, when you're the owner of a condo, your rights must be balanced against the rights of all the other owners of the units. This is where the MC/JMB plays an important role to weed out the problems and attempt to strike a balance between the individual rights of an owner to deal with his own property as he likes AND the rights of the other owners to enjoy quiet and peaceful use of their own unit and the common property of the condo.