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

The Shah Alam High Court has ruled that a condominium joint management body cannot use house rules to impose a blanket prohibition on pets in private residential units. — Pexels pic

First Published: Friday, 30 Oct 2026 8:19 PM MYT

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