EDEN Taman Duta — 146 freehold units on Jalan Gallagher, and KPKT files them as a condominium, not as villas

Six things about EDEN Taman Duta that only the filing will tell you

None of these six is in a brochure headline. All six come out of the KPKT register, the filed advertisement, a Bursa announcement or a direct comparison between two documents the developer itself published.

Layouts — the filed schedule has three types, the marketing has five

The filed statutory built-up schedule and the developer’s marketed schedule are not the same document and do not describe the same product. The filed schedule stops at 6,491 sq ft; the marketed ceiling is 19,041. Both are printed here, each labelled with whose document it is. No floor plan of any kind is published by any source, so none is shown.

Site plan — eight blocks, lettered A to H

Developer’s own site plan · subject caption-published from its printed alt text, verbatim

8 blocksA to HNo Type B3–7 storeysClubhouse block in the building contract

The filed brochure’s block table and the developer’s own block table agree on eight residential blocks lettered A to H, with A, B, E and F filed as 3 & 5 storeys and C, D, G and H filed as 7. The register prints only 5 and 7; the developer’s site prints floors 1–5 and 1–7; The Edge Weekly says three to seven storeys. Nothing published resolves whether 3 & 5 means two block heights or two occupied floors, so this page publishes the range “three to seven storeys across eight blocks” and attributes it. The quantity surveyor counts eleven blocks in all — the eight residential blocks plus a clubhouse block and two car-park blocks. Which blocks hold the penthouses is not published by anyone, and is not guessed at here.

No floor plan is published for this type by any source. The filed schedule gives area and room counts only.

FILED Jenis A-1 — 5,522 to 5,533 sq ft

Filed KPKT HIMS statutory built-up schedule · about 513–514 m² (our conversion at 1 sq ft = 0.092903 m²; the filing publishes no metric figure)

4 + 2 bedrooms5 bathrooms + powder roomStrata parcel, Schedule HNo car-park allocation filed

4 + 2 is the Malaysian filing convention for four bedrooms plus two utility or helper rooms — six rooms in total, which is exactly what the register reports as bilik: “6, 7”. Do not read it as six bedrooms. Five bathrooms plus a bilik serbuk (powder room) makes six, matching the register’s bilikAir. No car-park allocation appears in the filed schedule for any type.

No floor plan is published for this type by any source.

FILED Jenis A-2 — 5,296 to 5,307 sq ft

Filed KPKT HIMS statutory built-up schedule · about 492–493 m² (our conversion)

4 + 2 bedrooms5 bathrooms + powder roomThe smallest filed type

This is the floor of the whole project at 5,296 sq ft. The marketing merges A-1 and A-2 into a single “Type A” and publishes the range 5,296 – 5,533 sq ft — which is A-2’s floor married to A-1’s ceiling. Two filed types, one marketed type. If a client is comparing paperwork to a brochure, that is where the letters stop matching.

No floor plan is published for this type by any source.

FILED Jenis C — 6,491 sq ft

Filed KPKT HIMS statutory built-up schedule · about 603 m² (our conversion) · the filed ceiling

4 + 2 bedrooms5 bathrooms + powder roomLargest type with a FILED area

This is where the filed statutory schedule stops. It is less than one third of the marketed ceiling of 19,041 sq ft — a ratio of 2.93× (ours). Everything above this line in the marketed range has no filed built-up area at all.

The developer publishes no floor plan, no bedroom count and no bathroom count for any marketed type.

MARKETED “Resident’s Villa” Type A — 5,296 to 5,533 sq ft

Developer’s microsite · about 492–514 m² (our conversion)

Marketed, not filed= filed A-1 + A-2 mergedBedrooms NOT PUBLISHEDBathrooms NOT PUBLISHED

“Resident’s Villa” is the developer’s name for a unit type, not a description of a landed house. These are strata parcels inside blocks of three to seven storeys, sold on the Schedule H contract. The developer’s own website publishes no bedroom and no bathroom count for this or any type — on a product whose filed statutory minimum is RM9,566,340.00. The only room counts in public are the filing’s, the register’s and one magazine’s description of the show unit.

No floor plan published. This is the one marketed type whose area matches a filed type exactly.

MARKETED “Resident’s Villa” Type C — 6,491 sq ft

Developer’s microsite · about 603 m² (our conversion)

Marketed and filed areas agreeSingle levelBedrooms NOT PUBLISHED

The only marketed figure that lands exactly on a filed figure. The Edge Weekly groups Types A and C together as the project’s single-level units, 5,296 to 6,491 sq ft, which is consistent with the filed schedule and with the microsite.

NOT IN THE FILED SCHEDULE. No filed built-up area exists for this type, and no floor plan is published.

MARKETED Penthouse Type A — 9,182 to 9,192 sq ft

Developer’s microsite · about 853–854 m² (our conversion)

No filed areaDouble-storeyInternal stairs and a liftBedrooms NOT PUBLISHED

The Edge Weekly reports 22 double-storey penthouses with internal stairs and a lift, 9,182 to 19,041 sq ft. Three sources agree on the count of 22. Not one of the three penthouse types appears in the filed statutory built-up schedule, so 15.07% of the units on this project have no filed built-up area (our arithmetic: 22 ÷ 146). “Penthouse” here is a unit type inside a strata block, not a separate landed product.

NOT IN THE FILED SCHEDULE. No floor plan is published.

MARKETED Penthouse Type C — 11,141 sq ft

Developer’s microsite · about 1,035 m² (our conversion)

No filed areaAlmost certainly the show unitDouble-storey

Tatler Asia describes a show unit of 1,035 m² with “more than four” bedrooms and seven bathrooms plus a guest toilet — and does not say which type it is. 1,035 m² is exactly Penthouse Type C, and no other type converts to it. That identification is our inference from the area, not a stated fact — but it is a strong one, and Tatler’s seven bathrooms also matches the register’s upper bilikAir: 7, which has no counterpart in the filed schedule.

NOT IN THE FILED SCHEDULE. No floor plan is published.

MARKETED Penthouse Type D — 18,998 to 19,041 sq ft

Developer’s microsite · about 1,765–1,769 m² (our conversion) · the marketed ceiling

No filed area2.93× the filed ceilingDouble-storey

The largest unit the developer markets, and the least documented unit on the project. The filed price rows do reach RM37,751,587.00, which is where units of this size must sit — but no filed price row is labelled a penthouse and no filed area describes one. The filed price rows are keyed to blocks; the filed built-up schedule is keyed to types; and nothing published joins the two, so a price per square foot cannot be computed honestly for any type.

A genuine gap in the published record, printed here rather than smoothed over.

There is no Type B — anywhere, in either schedule

Filed brochure and developer’s microsite, both negative

Blocks run A to HTypes run A-1, A-2, CNo source explains it

The blocks are lettered A to H. The filed schedule prints A-1, A-2 and C and stops. The marketed schedule prints Villa A, Villa C, Penthouse A, Penthouse C and Penthouse D. No source anywhere prints a Type B. The absence is unexplained by every document checked, and it is recorded as a finding rather than guessed at. Ask the developer directly.

Where the filed and the marketed schedules disagree: three types versus five; A-1 and A-2 as separate filed types versus one marketed “Type A”; a filed ceiling of 6,491 sq ft versus a marketed 19,041 (2.93×, ours); 22 penthouses with no filed area at all; and room counts filed as 4 + 2 and 5 + powder against nothing at all on the developer’s own website. Positively, and worth saying: no source claims a dual-key unit, and no source shows a studio, SOHO or office suite — every one of the 146 units is filed as residential under the HDA, with no non-HDA component. All square-metre figures on this page are our conversion; the filing publishes none. Ceiling heights, balcony and terrace areas, private-lift provision per type, the wet and dry kitchen split per type, and whether any part of a built-up is an accessory parcel are not published by anyone.

The four named pavilions, as the developer draws them

Why no image here is graded “confirmed”. The developer’s microsite runs on WordPress and its REST media endpoint is open — but the media library holds exactly one item, the logo. Every project image is a hard-coded theme asset, so no project image can be confirmed by a content-management title. Six of the nine images used on this page are caption-published (the developer’s own printed alt text, verbatim); three are filename-inferred only and are captioned generically. The developer’s numbered experience sets — architecture 1–12, penthouses 1–5, residences 1–3, facilities 1–13 — carry alt text that confirms the project but names no subject, so they are left out deliberately rather than captioned with a guess. Two hashed thumbnails on the corporate site were also refused: that site serves more than twenty projects across five countries from one hashed upload tree, with no filename, no folder name, no alt text and no caption, so there is no way to confirm either is this project.

Jalan Gallagher, Taman Duta / Bukit Tunku, Kuala Lumpur

Read this section for what is missing as much as for what is here. No source — not the developer, not The Edge, not The Star, not EdgeProp, not Tatler — publishes a single distance, a radius or a drive time to any named place, and no source names a single rail station. The developer’s own location page carries four category headings and not one place name in its text. Nothing below has been estimated to fill that gap.

RESIDENSI EDEN — the filed KPKT particulars, as filed

This is the spine of the page. Every cell below is a filed field from the KPKT TEDUH public register for project 32-16 or from the filed KPKT HIMS advertisement brochure, and where those two disagree with each other or with the developer’s own website, the disagreement is named rather than resolved silently. Run the check yourself: developer code 32, project 32-16, at teduh.kpkt.gov.my.

The price band is the filed statutory Unit Selling Price minimum and maximum across the eight filed unit groups, taken from the filed KPKT HIMS advertisement brochure and identical to the sen in the KPKT TEDUH register. The overall minimum and maximum are ours: the brochure prints eight rows and no overall band. This is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer. The only price that binds anyone is the one in the price list and the SPA at the sales gallery.

Dates verified against the register on 9 October 2026. The developer licence and the advertising and sales permit are two different instruments with two different expiry dates, and a current licence does not imply a current permit. Both are current here.

Schedule G or Schedule H — the question the word “villa” makes a buyer get wrong

A client who hears “villa” will assume a house on its own individual title under Schedule G. EDEN is filed under Schedule H, and three filed fields say so independently: the register’s pjb.jenis: Jadual H; the filed brochure’s Jenis perumahan: Kondominium; and all eight register component rows reading Rumah Pangsa/Kondo across 3-to-7-storey blocks of 12 to 27 units each. The filed tempohAsal: 36 Bulan corroborates it, because 36 months is the Schedule H statutory delivery period and Schedule G’s is 24. Here is what actually changes.

What is sold. Schedule G sells land and building, with an individual title to a parcel of land. Schedule H sells a parcel in a subdivided building — a strata title to an airspace parcel with an undivided share of the common property.
Statutory delivery period. Schedule G: 24 months from the SPA. Schedule H: 36 months — and on EDEN that 36 has been extended to 48 by an approved extension of time.
Progress payments. Schedule G follows its own third schedule. Schedule H follows Schedule H’s third schedule, which is a different ladder, with 5% retained against defects.
Late delivery. Both carry liquidated damages at 10% per annum of the purchase price from the day after the delivery period expires — but the Schedule H clock is longer, and on EDEN it now starts from 5 January 2030 rather than 5 January 2029.
Common property and running cost. Schedule G usually has none, or a modest estate fee. Schedule H makes a management corporation, a service charge and a sinking fund mandatory. EDEN’s only published rate is an estimate of 70 sen per square foot including the sinking fund, reported by The Edge Weekly — a developer estimate repeated by a magazine, not a filed or contractual figure. On that estimate a 5,296 sq ft Villa A would run about RM3,707 a month, a 6,491 sq ft Type C about RM4,544, and a 19,041 sq ft Penthouse D about RM13,329 (all three figures ours, on a magazine’s estimate — treat them as illustrations, not quotations).
Defect liability. 24 months from vacant possession under both schedules.
Altering the outside. Schedule G: the owner’s own, subject to the local authority. Schedule H: restricted by the by-laws and the management corporation.
Foreign-buyer path. Schedule H is the easier category — strata is the conventional foreign-purchase form, where landed property attracts additional restrictions in several states.

The fair reading. “Villa” is an entirely honest description of the product — single-level homes of 5,296 to 6,491 sq ft, four to eleven parking bays, a drop-off per block. It is not a description of the tenure or the contract. Say both, in that order.
And one thing nobody answers: no source states whether the scheme will be one management corporation across all eight blocks and the clubhouse or subsidiary management corporations per block. On an eight-block scheme with a shared clubhouse that materially affects governance and cost allocation. It is a real question and it is unanswered.

The filed statutory Unit Selling Price band, group by group

These eight rows are the filed statutory Unit Selling Price minima and maxima exactly as the filed KPKT HIMS advertisement brochure prints them, and they are identical to the sen in the KPKT TEDUH register. That exact agreement is itself a finding: on other projects the registry band has turned out to be a splice of two permit generations matching no filed advertisement. Here there is no splice.

Row 1 — 5 storeys, 13 units: RM10,444,845.36 – RM18,445,195.00 · brochure’s own baki 11
Row 2 — 5 storeys, 13 units: RM9,566,340.00 – RM18,966,845.00 · baki 7 — this row holds the project’s floor
Row 3 — 7 storeys, 21 units: RM10,954,639.18 – RM22,091,151.00 · baki 17
Row 4 — 7 storeys, 27 units: RM9,606,649.48 – RM32,798,711.34 · baki 17
Row 5 — 5 storeys, 13 units: RM11,345,877.00 – RM19,189,588.00 · baki 11
Row 6 — 5 storeys, 12 units: RM11,682,857.00 – RM37,585,608.00 · baki 10
Row 7 — 7 storeys, 27 units: RM9,696,752.58 – RM37,300,103.00 · baki 17
Row 8 — 7 storeys, 20 units: RM10,335,773.20 – RM37,751,587.00 · baki 13 — this row holds the project’s ceiling
146 units in total. Overall filed band RM9,566,340.00 – RM37,751,587.00 — that overall band is OUR minimum and maximum across the eight filed rows; the brochure prints no overall figure.

The baki column is a genuine filed disclosure, and an unusual one. It is the brochure’s own balance-remaining count. Summing it gives 103 of 146 units still unsold, i.e. 43 taken up, about 29.5%, as at the brochure’s document date of 17 August 2026 (the sum and the percentage are ours, on a filed disclosure; they will go stale, so they are dated).
The rows are keyed to blocks, not to types. The brochure’s price rows and its block table run in the same order and the same unit counts (13, 13, 21, 27, 13, 12, 27, 20), which makes row 1 = Block A through row 8 = Block H all but certain — but that mapping is our inference from the ordering, not a filed statement, and it is not presented as filed. Because the price rows are keyed to blocks and the built-up schedule to types, with nothing joining them, no honest price per square foot can be computed for any type, and neither the filing nor the register prints one.
One useful honesty check. The published gross development value is RM1.52 billion, which over 146 units averages about RM10.41 million a unit (ours). That sits just above the filed minimum of RM9,566,340.00 — which implies the filed maxima of RM32m to RM37.75m apply to very few units. The top of the band is not representative of the project, and anyone quoting the ceiling as “the price” is misreading it.
This is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer. The only price that binds anyone is the one in the price list and the SPA at the sales gallery.

Why the developer’s own website prints different money under the same permit number

This is the most significant contradiction on the project, and it is between two surfaces of the same developer. The developer’s microsite prints an APDL panel on at least four of its pages with the same eight unit groups, the same unit counts and the same storey counts as the filed advertisement and the register — and different money.

Six of its eight minima sit BELOW the filed statutory minimum for the same row, and its absolute floor sits below the filed absolute floor of RM9,566,340.00. None of those figures is reproduced on this page, in any form, and no arithmetic on them is published either. A figure that sits below the filed statutory minimum is not a figure this site will print.
The two tables are not two unrelated price lists. Three of the eight rows are effectively the same numbers, differing only by rounding to the ringgit — the filing prints sen, the website does not. They are two generations of one table.
The most probable explanation, stated as inference and not as fact: the register holds two permits of the same number on the same dates — …0602(A)-(S) marked Aktif and …0602(N)-(S) marked Tidak Aktif — and neither is flagged as the latest. The filed advertisement (document dated 17 August 2026) and the register both carry the active generation; the live website appears still to be serving the superseded one. The direction of travel supports that reading, and so does the fact that the same website still prints a completion date of “December 2029” rather than the filed January 2030. It reads as a stale web page, and nothing in any source says it is anything else.
A second publisher carries a below-floor band too. A weekly magazine feature printed its own single-level and penthouse bands in a pre-launch piece; its single-level floor also sits below the filed statutory minimum, so all of those figures are withheld as well. Counting independently, that is two publishers carrying below-floor figures — the developer itself and one magazine group. Note that theedgemalaysia.com and edgeprop.my share a single publisher, The Edge Communications, so they count as one, not two.
What to do about it. Treat the filed statutory band above as the only band, and verify the current band yourself at teduh.kpkt.gov.my against project 32-16 before relying on anything. Then ask for the official price list and the SPA. The developer gives no explanation for the gap and prints no “as at” date on its own panel, and that unanswered question is recorded here rather than papered over.

The advertising and sales permit: filed as a placeholder, and yet lapse CAN be assessed

The filed brochure prints No. permit iklan dan jualan: xxxxxxxxxxxxx — a literal placeholder. On most projects that ends the enquiry, because a licence validity must never be passed off as a permit validity. This case is different, and favourably so.

First, the placeholder sits next to a printed permit validity: Tempoh sah permit: 25/07/2025 sehingga 24/07/2028. The validity was filed even though the number was not. Second, two independent surfaces recover the real number and both agree with each other and with those dates — the KPKT TEDUH register (permitNo: 32-16/07-2028/0602(A)-(S), permitMula 2025-07-25, permitTamat 2028-07-24) and the developer’s own published APDL block. Third, the permit number’s own internal date, /07-2028/, independently encodes the July 2028 expiry.
Assessment as at 9 October 2026: the developer licence 32/08-2028/1034(A) is current, with about 22.3 months to run; the permit 32-16/07-2028/0602(A)-(S) is current and not lapsed, with about 21.5 months to run and about 14.5 months already elapsed (both ours). That is a positive finding, not a default.
Two cautions. An inactive twin of the permit, 32-16/07-2028/0602(N)-(S), sits in the register’s own history on identical dates and with an identical 36-month period, and neither generation is flagged as the latest — which is the most probable explanation of the price discrepancy above. And the licence suffix is printed three different ways by three surfaces of the same developer: (R) on the filed brochure, (A) in the register, (A) on the developer’s own website. This page publishes the register’s (A) and names the disagreement rather than quietly choosing. A reader who checks only the brochure will not be able to verify the permit number at all, and that is worth telling a client before they try.
Do not confuse the two numbers. The filed document’s own path identifier (P45-20260817-00020202) is a document reference, not a permit number, and the -(S) on the end of the permit is part of the permit number, not a phase index.

Foreign buyers — Kuala Lumpur’s RM1,000,000 floor, and every filed unit clears it

Kuala Lumpur / Wilayah Persekutuan applies a minimum purchase price of RM1,000,000 per unit for a foreign buyer, for both strata and landed property, with State Authority / Economic Planning Unit consent required. The clearest public citation found cites the National Land Code (Revised 2020), Act 828, section 433B for the consent requirement and the Ministry of Economy’s Garis Panduan Perolehan Hartanah, effective 13 July 2022, for the thresholds — but that page links only the general EPU website rather than a specific gazette, so treat RM1,000,000 as the prevailing policy threshold and verify it before advising any client.

The arithmetic here is the mirror image of most projects on this site’s list. The lowest filed statutory price on the whole of EDEN is RM9,566,340.00 and the highest is RM37,751,587.00. Every one of the 146 filed units clears the RM1,000,000 floor — the cheapest by a factor of 9.57 (our arithmetic; the price figures are the filed statutory ones). On most projects covered here not a single unit reaches the floor. Here not a single unit falls below it, and for an overseas Chinese-speaking buyer that is the single most commercially relevant fact on the page.
Clearing the floor is necessary but not sufficient. State Authority / EPU consent is still required and carries a fee — one public source estimates roughly RM10,000, in a range of about RM8,000 to RM12,000. The units are strata (Rumah Pangsa/Kondo), which is the easier category for a foreign buyer than landed title. And this is a second reason the Schedule G / H finding matters: a buyer who believed they were buying a landed villa on an individual title would be reasoning about the harder path, not the one they are actually on.
For reference, the neighbouring state’s thresholds are different again: Selangor Zones 1 and 2 are RM2,000,000, strata and gated landed strata only; Zone 3, meaning Hulu Selangor and Sabak Bernam, is RM1,000,000. Kuala Lumpur, where EDEN is, is RM1,000,000 with EPU consent.

Construction progress, CCC and vacant possession — and why this project is neither late nor early

All eight register component rows read peratus: 20.00, ccc: “-”, vp: “-” and komponen: Lancar, and the development as a whole reads status.keseluruhan: Lancar. There is no filed CCC and no filed vacant possession. So this project cannot be said to have beaten anything, and equally cannot be called late — and the register’s own verdict, on the development and on every one of its eight components, is Lancar, proceeding smoothly. That is a meaningful positive and it belongs next to the extension, not in a separate paragraph.

What the extension changes for a buyer, concretely. Under Schedule H, liquidated damages run at 10% per annum of the purchase price from the day after the delivery period expires. The approved extension moves the date that clock starts from 5 January 2029 to 5 January 2030 — twelve months of liquidated damages that a buyer who signed in January 2026 can no longer claim. On the filed statutory minimum of RM9,566,340.00 that is roughly RM956,634 of foregone liquidated damages over the twelve months (our arithmetic, illustrative; the real figure follows each buyer’s own purchase price). It is disclosed nowhere in the marketing, and it is the single most valuable thing on this page for an existing or prospective purchaser.
But the honest reading is not simply “delay”. The main building contract was only let on 12 June 2026, commencing 15 June 2026 with a 33-month period, which programmes practical completion at about mid-March 2029 — after the original 5 January 2029 date (ours). The first SPA was signed five months before the builder was appointed. On those public dates the original date was arithmetically unreachable from the start, and the extension reads as a re-baselining of a programme that had already moved rather than an excuse invented late. The revised date sits about 9.7 months after the contractor’s programmed completion (ours), which is ordinary headroom for certification, strata and handover.
And credit where it is due: the developer’s own filed brochure already prints the revised date, Tarikh dijangka siap: Januari 2030. On most projects covered here the brochure and the portals still printed the original date long after the amendment. This one disclosed it. Its website, however, has not caught up and still prints “December 2029”.
One thing the register does not tell you. The revised date is keyed to the first SPA. Buyers whose own agreements post-date the amendment may have contracted on the 48-month period from the outset. The register does not disclose which buyers are on which period, and the reason the extension was sought and granted is not published at all. Check it against the individual SPA, every time.

The register’s offence flag against the developer — recorded, not characterised

The KPKT TEDUH developer object for code 32 carries the field mempunyaiKesalahan: “Ada Kesalahan”. That is KPKT’s own field, printed by KPKT, and it is recorded here because it is part of the public record and a buyer is entitled to know it exists.

What the register does NOT say, and this page will not guess at: it does not say what the breach was, which project it attached to, when it was recorded, or whether it has been resolved. This developer code carries sixteen registered projects, so the flag cannot be attributed to EDEN, and nothing in any source suggests it relates to this project. No wrongdoing on this project is implied, stated or hinted at here. If it matters to a client, the particulars have to come from KPKT itself, in writing — and the developer’s own status in the same register reads statusPemaju: Aktif.

What this page does not publish, and why

Louis’s standing instruction, and this site’s hard rule. No discount, no rebate, no nett price, no promotional package, no freebie, no incentive, no commission, no Bumiputera discount percentage, no leaseback or guaranteed-rental rate and no yield or ROI projection appears anywhere on this page, in any language, and none was sought from any sales file. The only price figures here are the filed statutory Unit Selling Price minima and maxima from the legally filed advertisement particulars, which are identical to the sen in the public KPKT register — always labelled as such, and always with the line that they are not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer.

Specifically withheld on this project:
• The developer’s own microsite price table. Six of its eight minima sit below the filed statutory minimum for the same row. None of those figures is printed, and no arithmetic on them is printed. Only the fact of the discrepancy, and that it is carried by two independent publishers — the developer itself and one magazine group, where two sister titles under one publisher count as one.
• A magazine’s pre-launch single-level and penthouse bands, whose single-level floor also sits below the filed statutory minimum.
• The Bumiputera discount field. The filed brochure and the developer’s own APDL panel both carry that field. Its existence is stated here because a buyer should know a Bumiputera price applies on this scheme; its value is not published, and will not be.
• Any price per square foot, because the filed price rows are keyed to blocks and the filed built-up schedule to types, and nothing published joins them. A psf figure here would be arithmetic on two documents that do not meet.

And the separate list — not published by anyone, therefore not on this page: the bebanan or chargee over the land, which is the single field a cautious buyer most wants and which no source prints; the housing development account number and the bank holding it; the land area in any filed document; the mukim, seksyen or PT number; the express condition of the title; whether the strata plan is approved and the share-unit allocation per parcel; whether the 4-to-11 parking bays are accessory parcels or common-property allocations; whether the scheme will have one management corporation or subsidiary ones per block; whether the clubhouse is common property or retained by the developer; the total car-park bay count; which blocks hold the penthouses; any filed built-up area for the 22 penthouses; any mapping of filed price rows to unit types; bedroom and bathroom counts for any penthouse type; ceiling heights, balcony and terrace areas and private-lift provision per type; any floor plan at all; the finishes specification beyond a list of brand names, with no model, allowance, schedule or per-type assignment; whether the penthouses are delivered furnished, fitted to the show-unit standard or bare; solar capacity, rainwater-harvesting capacity, EV-charger count and bicycle-bay count, all claimed and none specified; any GreenRE or GBI certificate number, rating or assessment stage; the architect of record; the developer’s modern 12-digit registration number; whether the RM83 million substructure subcontract sits inside or outside the RM529.319 million main contract; the site postcode; any distance or drive time to any named place; and the nearest rail station, which not one source names.
Every one of those is a question Louis will put to the developer in writing on a client’s behalf. None of them is filled in here with a plausible guess.

EDEN Taman Duta — frequently asked questions

Also worth seeing — other Kuala Lumpur projects checked the same way

Published 9 October 2026 · Last verified 9 October 2026 against KPKT TEDUH project 32-16, the filed KPKT HIMS advertisement brochure, the Bursa-reported Kerjaya Prospek and Econpile contract announcements, the project quantity surveyor’s record and the developer’s own published surfaces. This is marketing information, not an offer. Filed particulars change — verify at teduh.kpkt.gov.my before you rely on anything here.