Daya Residence @ Kwasa Damansara — filed with KPKT as RESIDENSI DAYA

TSR Development Sdn Bhd, 201801002745 (1264758-V) — printed verbatim in both KPKT HIMS filings, on both of the developer’s own APDL pages and in its Phase 2 brochure. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Bursa-listed TSR Capital Berhad, 200101005393 (541149-W).

The Edge Malaysia and iProperty both name “TSR Capital Bhd” as the developer. That is the listed parent, not the licensee. Your sale and purchase agreement is with the subsidiary. Neither filing names a developer officer.

Yes, and this one holds up on the documents. Pegangan tanah is filed as “Bebas” for Phase 1 and “Kekal” for Phase 2 — two different Malay words, both meaning freehold — and sekatan kepentingan is “Tiada” on both filings, meaning no restriction in interest on either title. The developer’s own APDL pages, its Phase 2 brochure and The Edge all agree.

That matters because Kwasa Damansara is described by iProperty as “a blend of freehold and leasehold”, and a sibling scheme on the same township is filed as 96-year leasehold. One thing to drop: the stale block on the developer’s own site says the land cannot be transferred, leased or charged without State Authority approval. Both current filings say “Tiada”. Have your solicitor confirm the title and any endorsement on it before you sign.

A condominium on residential title. Both current KPKT filings, both of the developer’s APDL pages and its own Phase 2 brochure file Phase 2 as “Kondominium 24 Tingkat” — approved by MBSA under the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966, with an advertising permit.

The stale block in the developer’s own microsite footer describes the same 260-unit development as “Type: Serviced Residence”, which in Malaysia normally means a commercial-title product on commercial land, with commercial quit rent and commercial utility tariffs. One agent microsite the sales team links to says “Freehold Residential Title Property”, agreeing with the filings and contradicting the developer’s own footer. The filings govern: condominium, residential title.

All 260 units are HDA residential, and that is worth saying plainly. Every filed type in both phases is a dwelling: Rumah Sesebuah, Rumah Berkembar, Kondominium and Rumah Villa Bandar. There is no office suite, no SOHO, no SOFO, no studio-office parcel and no commercial or retail unit anywhere in either filed schedule — the smallest unit in the entire project is a 947 sq ft three-bedroom.

Both phases hold a developer’s licence and a live advertising permit, so Schedule G applies to Phase 1 (landed, individual title) and Schedule H to Phase 2 (strata), with HDA liquidated damages and a housing development account. The only non-dwelling structures the developer lists are a clubhouse and a TNB compact substation — common property and infrastructure, not saleable units.

The statutory Unit Selling Price minimum and maximum, exactly as filed in the BUTIR-BUTIR IKLAN: Phase 1 RM2,657,000 to RM4,021,000 and Phase 2 RM631,800 to RM2,150,800. The per-type schedule is in the unit-types section of this page. Those are the filed SPA price ranges. They are not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer.

Phase 2’s filing prints no single project-wide range, so the figures above are the lowest and highest filed per-type values. Three published figures that sit below the filed statutory minimum — one in the stale block on the developer’s own site, one set of pre-launch floors reported in February 2024, and one portal’s resale asking floor — are not reproduced on this page; only the fact that the discrepancy exists and how many independent sources carry it. For a real figure on a real unit, the authoritative documents are the developer’s price list and the sale and purchase agreement at the sales gallery. Message Louis and he will get them for you.

Both are current at 8 October 2026 — but they are not the same permit and they do not expire together. Phase 1: 30508-1/02-2027/0132(N)-(S), valid 07/02/2024 to 06/02/2027. Phase 2: 30508-2/01-2029/0064(N)-(S), valid 27/01/2026 to 26/01/2029. The developer’s licence, 30508/07-2028/0185(N), runs to 20/07/2028.

Phase 1’s permit expires in about four months. Any Phase 1 advertisement published after 6 February 2027 needs the renewed permit number, so if you are shown Phase 1 marketing material next year, check the permit on it.

An important caveat on where these numbers come from. Both KPKT HIMS filings carry the Permit Iklan dan Jualan field as a literal xxxxxxxxx placeholder — the APDL is simply not filled in on the government copy of either phase. The numbers above come from the developer’s own two APDL pages, transcribed identically by one independent agent page: three readings of each, which is why the lapse check is sound. But it rests on the developer’s publication, not on the KPKT filing. From HIMS alone, lapse-versus-current could not be assessed for this project at all — and the developer’s licence validity must never be passed off as the permit validity.

Because the microsite home page and both of its APDL pages carry a stale statutory block in the footer that disagrees with the two current filings on eight fields at once: development type, developer’s licence, advertising permit, approving authority, building-plan reference, chargee bank, completion date and restriction in interest — plus a price band whose minimum sits far below both filed minima, which is why this page does not reproduce that band.

Two readings are possible and I cannot settle between them. It may be template filler — “0101” repeats inside the string, and the licence and the permit are given the identical number, which is not how APDLs are issued. Or it may be an earlier, abandoned MBPJ-era serviced-residence design for the same plot, since the block says 260 units, exactly Daya’s total, which is a striking coincidence for pure filler.

Either way it does not describe the project as licensed, permitted and being built, and nothing from it appears on this page. The error is already propagating: PropertyGuru repeats “approval from Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya” on its own project page. For this parcel the authority is Majlis Bandaraya Shah Alam — both filings, both APDL tables, the Phase 2 brochure, and the Phase 1 plan reference string itself, which contains SEK:U4.

Not as a whole project, no — and the figure that refutes the claim comes from the developer’s own executive. The brochure says “Low density with 260 units”. The Edge, in the same article in which the project is called low-density, reports “260 residential units in total, about 40 units per acre”. The parcel is 6.52 acres (The Edge; the developer says “6.5 acres” on three of its own pages; Malay Mail’s 2018 award figure of 2.64 ha is 6.524 acres by my conversion — three sources agreeing). 260 ÷ 6.52 = 39.9 units per acre by my arithmetic. That is an ordinary Klang Valley density for a scheme with a 24-storey tower on it.

The defensible version applies to Phase 1 only: 35 landed homes — 34 semi-detached and one detached house — on lots of 2,450 to 4,725 sq ft. That part is genuinely low-density. Two traps to avoid: one agent page prints “13.04 acres, 6.52 acres per phase”, which would halve the density and contradicts five other sources; and the brochure sets the township’s acreage, parks and cycle routes beside its own low-density claim. Those are Kwasa Land’s township numbers, not Daya’s. Density is computed against the project’s own 6.52 acres.

By phase, and with the sources separated. Phase 1: Tarikh dijangka siap filed as December 2026; the developer’s own APDL page says February 2027. Phase 2: filed as December 2028; the developer’s own APDL page and brochure say January 2029. EdgeProp carries December 2026 for Phase 1, and one agent microsite carries Q4 2028 for Phase 2.

The pattern is consistent: each phase’s filed date sits exactly two months earlier than the developer’s own published date. The HIMS copy is the as-filed version carrying an unfilled permit placeholder, and the developer’s version carries the issued permit, so the developer’s dates are probably the later-revised ones.

But the project has slipped by roughly two years against what was told to the press. The Edge reported in February 2024 that the whole development would complete by 1Q2027 — now irreconcilable with Phase 2’s filed December 2028 — and completion was expected in 2024 at the 2018 award. The stale footer block gives June 2026, which fits nothing. Do not accept a single whole-project completion date; ask which phase. Your remedy if the developer is late is the HDA liquidated-damages clause in your own Schedule G or H.

This is the one unit type in the project where the sources fall apart. Four published built-up figures exist, and the spread between the smallest and largest is 836 sq ft — 28 per cent of the unit.

The filed figure, from the Phase 2 statutory schedule, is 326 m², which is 3,509 sq ft by my conversion. The developer’s own Phase 2 brochure, its microsite and its APDL page all say 3,810 sq ft. The Edge says 2,975 sq ft. One agent microsite and iProperty say 2,974 sq ft. This page gives the filed figure, with the conversion labelled, and nothing else.

By contrast, all eight condominium types reconcile to the filed schedule to within one square foot — 146 m² converts to 1,571.5 against a marketed 1,572; 88 m² converts to 947.2 against a marketed 947. For the condominium, the marketed sizes are the filed sizes. For the villa, insist on the built-up written into the S&P. Also unpublished: whether the seven villas sit on individual or strata titles, and whether they share the condominium’s management corporation.

No, to both — and on the green question the developer is being honest. No row for Daya Residence, Residensi Daya, TSR Development or TSR Capital appears in the reachable portions of the GreenRE Gold or Silver registers, and no GBI record was located for any of them. Both GreenRE listings truncated before the end, so the accurate statement is “no record found in the reachable portion of the register”, not a certified negative. The developer makes no GBI, GreenRE, LEED or other green claim at all for this project; its only environmental language is about the township. The one provisional green rating in Kwasa Damansara belongs to a different scheme by a different developer, and it is not borrowed onto this page.

On awards: the developer’s own page carries the heading “Award-Winning Developer” and then names no award, no year and no awarding body beneath it. There is no awards page on its corporate site, and its “who we are” page names none either — only the slogan “Building Excellence Since 1991”, which is not an award. The claim has no primary support and is not repeated here.

No. Malay Mail states in terms that the instrument is “an agreement for development rights and revenue sharing, not a joint venture”, signed on 10 April 2018 between Kwasa Development (3) Sdn Bhd — a wholly owned subsidiary of Kwasa Land — and TSR Development Sdn Bhd, for a consideration of RM58.94 million against a GDV at award of RM295 million.

So there is no equity split to publish, because there is no equity JV. This matters because neighbouring schemes in this township genuinely are on Kwasa Land joint ventures, and that is exactly how the label gets borrowed from one project to another. The landowner and master developer is Kwasa Land Sdn Bhd, wholly owned by the EPF. The route in was as a contractor: The Edge records that TSR first worked in Kwasa Damansara as main contractor for infrastructure works, “which is how it learned of the project”.

Within roughly 1 to 1.5 km of two MRT stations on the Kajang Line — Kwasa Sentral and Kwasa Damansara — on agent- and portal-published figures. The developer publishes no distance for either station. Its microsite says only “Close proximity to two MRT Stations” and does not name them in the text; its Phase 2 brochure names more than twenty places, including both stations, and prints not one figure in kilometres or minutes anywhere.

Which station is nearer is not settled. One agent microsite gives 1 km and 1.5 km; one agent page gives OpenStreetMap straight lines of about 900 m and about 1.4 km and labels them as such; a review site’s key-facts panel agrees, then reverses its own ordering two sections later on the same page; and PropertyGuru’s computed figure for the nearer station, about 1,550 m, is larger than three other sources’ figure for the farther one. Malay Mail’s 2018 report says only that “two MRT stations are within a 2 km radius”.

This page therefore prints no single metre figure as fact and does not use the phrase “walking distance” — no source publishes a walking time, or any travel time at all, for this project. Walk it yourself before you decide it matters.

This is the list Louis will go and ask the developer for. Nothing below is estimated or filled in:

• The PT or lot number of the development parcel itself, and its street address. PT51446 is filed as the Sales Gallery address only.
• The title numbers (HSD / GRN) for either phase, and GPS coordinates — no government register publishes them.
• Keluasan tanah is not printed in either statutory block. The 6.52-acre figure is journalistic and marketing, never statutory. The per-phase land split is not published either, so per-phase density cannot be computed and is not estimated here.
• Plot ratio, GFA, and whether any Bumiputera lot quota applies to specific units.
• What is on Levels 1 to 5 of the 24-storey tower. Units start at Level 6 on the developer’s own brochure, so a five-level podium is implied — and no source says what it contains.
• The total car park bay count, the visitor bay count, and the number of lifts or the lift-to-unit ratio. Per-unit bays are published (2 for the condominium, 3 for the villa and semi-detached, 4 for the detached house) but Tempat letak kereta is not printed in either statutory block, and whether bays are on the strata title or merely allocated is not stated.
• Bedroom and bathroom counts are not printed in either filed schedule, so every count on this page is marketing — and the sources disagree: four renderings of the semi-detached bathrooms, and 6 versus 7 bedrooms for the detached house.
• Ceiling and floor-to-floor heights, and the finishes and fittings specification.
• Which exact units are park-facing. “Unobstructed Park View” is claimed with no stack list or orientation plan behind it.
• The town villa’s true built-up (four published figures), and whether the villas are on individual or strata titles.
• The service charge as a filed or contractual figure. 28 sen psf is journalistic plus agent-reported; neither brochure nor the microsite prints it, and the sinking fund is not broken out. No quit rent or assessment estimate exists.
• Take-up or sold percentage. The Edge reported “over 800 registrations” in February 2024 and explicitly gave no sold or booked figure; the microsite marks two Phase 1 products fully sold and says nothing else.
• The main contractor for either phase, the Phase 2 contract sum, and every consultant name — architect, C&S, M&E, QS, town planner, landscape designer. All recorded by the myBina register, all behind its paywall.
• The revenue-sharing terms with Kwasa Land beyond the RM58.94 million consideration, and the named developer officer.
• Current construction progress for either phase, and whether the clubhouse space earmarked as a possible café will be fitted out.

If any of these decides your purchase, ask for it in writing before you pay a booking fee.

malaysiaproperty4u.com publishes only the statutory Unit Selling Price minimum and maximum from the legally filed advertisement particulars — the filed SPA price — always labelled as such and always with the reminder that it is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer. Beyond that, certain commercial terms are deliberately withheld on this page as a matter of standing policy — none of them, from any source. Ask me for the documents instead.

That is deliberate. Anything of that kind is time-limited, unit-specific and changes without notice, so publishing it would mislead you; and a figure that nets off an incentive is not the price written into your SPA. Three published figures that sit below the filed statutory minimum are also withheld: the band in the stale block on the developer’s own site, a set of pre-launch floor prices reported in February 2024, and one portal’s resale asking floor. Only the fact that each discrepancy exists, and how many independent sources carry it, appears above.

Message Louis for anything current. He will tell you what is actually available on a specific unit today, in writing, against the developer’s own price list.