Kepong Sentral Kondo

Walking through the whiteboard to office pantry, i noticed a pamphlet sticked on it.

Flyers? A condo called Kepong Sentral.

hehe.. promotion to government servant ka?

My hand is so 'ringan' so i called the salesman as stated in the flyer.

He said the condo is now ready for occupancy. Already got CF.

There is about 35 units left.

Price started at RM196K actually, but they are willing to markup the s&p price to rm240K so that we can get higher loan. Can have more cash for renovation.

:)

Let say for government servant who may apply for 240K loan, so, we can get the full loan plus extra 44K cash.

But if we want to apply for bank loan, should be no problem too.

Hm.. rm196K for the type B layout, about 962 sqft.

The maintenance fee is rm158 per month.

I have not visit the site yet but he said it is near to Kepong KTM Station.

Less than 5 minute walk.. really?

They are currently organising a roadshow at MidValley untill Sunday.

Their booth is near to McD.

So, if anyone interested, can double check the condo.

They are giving away free 4 air-cond, 1 fridge, 1 tv, 1 kitchen cabinet and 1 car park for those able to secure 90% loan.

If you get less than 90% loan, the electical appliance is not available for you.

What is the justification for the such case? I dont know.

he just said, "sorry don't have.. must get 90% loan."

Court decision renders land title worthless

teruknya decision case terbaru ni..

pemegang title tanah takde hak ke atas tanah walaupun pihak kerajaan mengambil tanah tu tidak mengikut prosedur undang2 yg telah ditetapkan di dalam kanun tanah negara?

teruk!

kawan2, sila baca dan fahamkan kes ini.

By Terence Fernandez

PETALING JAYA (April 27, 2010): Your land title may not be worth the paper it is printed on as the Government need not follow procedures in acquiring your property -- this is the consequence of a decision by the Kuala Lumpur High Court is anything to go by.

In the March 11 decision, Justice Datuk Alizatul Khair Osman Khairuddin ruled in chambers that Ishmael Lim Abdullah had no rights to the property he had been residing on and cultivating for the last 18 years as his land was acquired way back in 1973 – despite Lim being the registered titled owner and the failure of the Gombak Land Office to register the acquisition.

In spite of the Land Office admitting its failure, Justice Alizatul held that it was not mandatory to register the acquisition by endorsing "Form K" (a requirement under the National Land Code).

Form K is a document that basically informs everyone of the acquisition.

Lim's late father had bought the 5,000 sq metre property in Templer’s Park in 1975 without any encumbrances and bequeathed the land to him in 1992. Like his father before him, Lim had been paying quit rent and even charged the property to a bank for a loan in 1993.

However, on March 9, 2005, the Gombak Land Office issued an eviction notice on Lim saying his land, along with 12 other plots had been acquired for an armed forces training school.

Five searches done between 1993 and 2005 confirmed Lim as the registered owner of the property, with no indication that the land was acquired nor of any encumbrances.

Lim proceeded to take the Federal Land Commissioner and the Gombak Land Office to court on April 7, 2005 to challenge an eviction notice.

The High Court, then under Justice Wan Arfah Wan Ibrahim, ruled in his favour, keeping things at status quo until Lim and the land administrators sort out the land issues.

In spite of this order, the Land Office proceeded to cancel Lim’s ownership of the land – a clear act of contempt.

This prompted Lim’s current action to reinstate his status as the registered owner, to challenge the eviction and to seek costs.

However, according to legal notes, Justice Alizatul ruled that as the acquisition was indefeasible, Lim had no claim to the land, and the acquisition predates his or his father’s ownership to the property.

The defendants had relied on the Land Acquisition Act 1960 which gives powers to the State to acquire property.

Moreover, the compensation to Lim will be based on the value of the land in 1973 – RM6,187.50! Although Lim claims realtors valued his property at RM1.23 million.

The defendants argued that the acquisition was done on April 10, 1973, hence the transfer of the property to Lim’s father (Lim Yew Kay) on Oct 24, 1975 and thence to Lim on Dec 10, 1992 was void.

They also claimed that the compensation for acquisition was paid to the courts on March 11, 1974.

The defendants also claimed that notices were sent to the original owner of the land, Lim Cheng Kim, in 1974.

Lim’s lawyers argued that the defendants had not played fair, stating that they had not contested the April 7, 2005 injunction and in fact had notified the court then that they wished to resolve the matter amicably.

This, they argued had "lulled Lim into a false sense of security for two years", where they filed an affidavit in 2007 to challenge his claim as well as his proprietary rights.

Justice Alizatul dismissed this argument.

Lim is appealing the decision under a certificate of urgency to expedite the hearing as he lives on and earns his living from the land. -- theSun

--
Rohaniah Noor
rohaniahnoor@gmail.com
http://rohaniahnoor.blogspot.com

domain 3 hot sale

lama tak update blog.

nampaknya domain 3 yg baru mula soft launch 3 minggu lepas dah jual macam goreng pisang panas.

walaupun ada saingan dari shaftsbury, tapi ramai masih berminat dengan domain 3.

mungkin sebab harganya lebih murah?

setakat entri ini ditulis, diskaun bumi utk domain 3 cuma tinggal dalam 3 atau 4 unit.

lepas tu dah takde.

tapi dengar cerita shaftsbury pun boleh tahan jualannya.

saya tak sempat melawat lagi tapi konsep SOHO di cyberjaya memang menarik.

Cuba juga menghubungi pejabat juallany tadi tapi tak angkat pula.

Hm.. nampaknya kalau hujung2 semester dan musim demam peperiksaan, memang banyak yang saya terpaksa abaikan.

eh tapi kaalau nak book domain, tawaran 50-50 buyer get buyer dengan saya masih on.

daripada anda booking saja2, apa kata letak nama saya as referral.

then kita share la separuh sorg.

:)
--
Rohaniah Noor
rohaniahnoor@gmail.com
http://rohaniahnoor.blogspot.com

Kaji sambung LRT ke Kajang, Sungai Buloh

Petikan dari Kosmo, 9 April 2009

KUALA LUMPUR - Kerajaan sedang mengkaji cadangan supaya laluan Transit Aliran Ringan (LRT) yang baru iaitu dari Cheras dan Kota Damansara disambung sehingga ke Kajang dan Sungai Buloh sejauh 16 kilometer.

Menteri Pengangkutan, Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat berkata, sambungan dari Kota Damansara ke Stesen Keretapi Tanah Melayu Berhad (KTMB) Sungai Buloh sejauh tiga kilometer bertujuan menyediakan integrasi lebih baik dengan perkhidmatan komuter di sebelah utara.

Bagi sambungan dari Cheras hingga Kajang sejauh sembilan kilometer pula bertujuan untuk mengintegrasikannya dengan perkhidmatan komuter KTMB di sebelah selatan.

"Laluan LRT baru ini juga akan mempunyai jajaran tambahan dari Uptown Damansara Utama ke Kelana Jaya sejauh empat kilometer bagi mengatasi masalah kesesakan lalu lintas di Lebuh Raya Damansara-Puchong," katanya.

--
Rohaniah Noor
rohaniahnoor@gmail.com
http://rohaniahnoor.blogspot.com

akibat terkurang clause

di dalam penyewaan rumah, perjanjian sewaan sangat penting.

ia merupakan intipati dan kontrak yg termeterai antara tuan rumah dan penyewa.

perjanjian boleh jadi secara bertulis atau secara verbal.

biasanya tuan rumah melayu yg tak serius dgn pelaburan hartanah hanya menggunakan perjanjian lisan sahaja..

sekadar bercakap, ok, rumah ni sewa harga sekian sekian.. deposit sekian sekian..

tempoh sewaan pun tak ada.

bayar deposit, dapat kunci dan settle.

dulu masa saya sewa rumah di pinggiran putrajaya macam tu la..

tapi bagi pelabur hartanah yang serius dengan pelaburannya, yg ingin mengekalkan sikap profesional di dalam urusan ini, akan menggunakan perjanjian secara bertulis.

ini kerana semua terma jelas disebut..

bayaran sewaan, tempoh sewaan. butiran penyewa dan tuan rumah, dateline pembayaran, cara pembayaran sewaan, senarai inventori, tanggungjawab tuan rumah, tanggungjawab penyewa, tanggungjawab bersama dan akuan masing2 beserta saksi.

perjanjian yg siap di matikan setem akan boleh digunakan utk membuktikan yg tuan rumah mempunyai pendapatan tambahan kepada bank.

bagi menampung semula jumlah komitmen bulanan yg dibayar kepada bank.

penjanjian ini juga boleh dibawa sebagai bukti di mahkamah, jika ada apa2 pertikaian kemudian hari.

wah.. panjangnya intro.

sebenarnya nak cerita.

rumah saya kat cyberjaya tu kan saya sewa as room for rent.

ada la sebab kenapa jadi macamtu.

saya dah cerita di blog ni dah pun.

oleh kerana pada masa tu, 1st time saya buat room for rent, jadi saya dan partner mmg terdesak nak draft agreement room tenancy dlm bahasa inggeris.

kami cari contoh sewaan bilik utk asrama satu university di UK dan kami modified ikut keperluan.

partner saya lagi terer bahasa law dlm english ni.. seb baik...

dah nak cepat, saya dan partner cuma check mana2 clause yg kami rasa penting je..

hujung bulan mac, sorg tenant middle room yg baru balik dr filipina call saya

dier dua bulan tak ada sebab balik bersalin di filipina.

bila dia balik, dia kata dah ada sorang lelaki duduk bilik ke3.

tenant bilik ke3 saya kongsi bilik master dgn tenant bilik master yg semangnya rakan senegara dan seuniversiti dia.

so bilik ke 3 dier bg org lain duduk.. lelaki pulak tu.

mmg tenant bilik ke3 ni sangkut payment bulan lepas.

janji bulan ni nak bayar 2 bulan sekaligus.

aduhai... saya suka tenant filipina tu sbb dier boleh diharap jaga rumah, bayar tepat pada masa dan dier la yg jaga pembayaran bil2 semua.

dier rasa kurang selesa bila ada lelaki dlm rumah.

cuma nasib baik lelaki tu jenis tak amik tahu hal org lain, katanya.

hm.. bila saya tgk dlm agreement, kami tertinggal clause yg mengatakan tak boleh sublet kan rumah tu

apatah lagi tak ada clause yg kata tak boleh sublet kepada non-female.

sedangkan clause ni mmg ada dlm agreement rumah sewa versi BM saya.

macamana saya boleh terlepas pandang?

hm.. skang saya dlm dilema..

kalau saya nak mamat ni keluar gak, kena slow talk je la..

benda tak ada dlm agreement.

so, kalau tenant ni takmo ikut, saya tak boleh paksa atau enforce contract.

pengajaran buat semua. jgn tertinggal clause2 yg penting.