## Facts

- Malayan Credit Ltd and Jack Chia-MPH Ltd shared occupancy of a commercial property.
- Each company occupied separate areas within the property.
- No written agreement provided for joint tenancy between the parties.
- The companies paid rent separately, with each payment corresponding to the specific space each party occupied.

## Issues

1. Whether the parties’ use and occupation of the premises created a tenancy in common or a joint tenancy.
2. How the absence of explicit lease terms affected the characterization of the parties’ co-ownership.
3. What the legal implications were for commercial leases where co-owners use distinct parts and pay rent proportionally.

## Decision

- The Privy Council held that Malayan Credit Ltd and Jack Chia-MPH Ltd were tenants in common, not joint tenants.
- The decision relied on the separate occupation of the property, lack of a written joint tenancy agreement, and separate rent payments proportional to occupied space.
- The court indicated that in commercial leases, divided use and individual rent payments point toward a tenancy in common, absent contrary agreement.

## Legal Principles

- Tenancy in common is distinguished from joint tenancy by the lack of survivorship; a deceased party’s share passes under their will or inheritance laws.
- Courts may infer a tenancy in common if co-owners occupy distinct parts of a property and pay rent proportionally, especially where agreements are silent on the nature of co-ownership.
- Clear expression of intent and defined shares in legal documents are required to establish a tenancy in common and to avoid disputes over rights and obligations.

## Conclusion

The Privy Council in Malayan Credit Ltd v Jack Chia-MPH Ltd established that, in the context of commercial leases, divided property use and proportional rent payments support finding a tenancy in common where parties’ intent is not expressly stated, emphasizing the need for clarity in co-ownership agreements.

Malayan Credit Ltd v Jack Chia-MPH Ltd [1986] AC 549 (PC)