THE MAISON 23 @ Cheras, Kuala Lumpur (DBKL, WP Kuala Lumpur) — 23 THREE-STOREY TERRACED HOUSES, filed Rumah Teres 3 Tingkat, Taman Bukit Mandarina, Cheras (Maison 23), KPKT 30937-1: all 23 on Jadual G with individual title — register status Lewat at 69.13% with NO approved extension, so vacant possession stands at 11 March 2027

Why this page reads differently from every brochure on this project

Six things. Each one is a document this page read and a decision it made in the open, and each one is checkable against a register code you can type in yourself.

Ten filed types, seven published plans, and the lot numbers that identify them

The filed brochure publishes ten type codes — A, A1, B, B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, C and C1 — and the developer’s own plan set publishes seven drawings, pairing them exactly the way the FILING pairs them. That is unusual and it does real work: one property portal relabels the filing’s B2/B3 as “B1” and its B4/B5 as “B2”, drops B3, B4 and B5 entirely, and publishes a header built-up of 3,068 ft² that matches no filed figure at all. The codes below are the filed codes. Built-ups and lot areas are quoted from the FILED brochure. Nothing on this page is read off a drawing.

Type A — lot 1

Filed built-up 4,032 ft² · filed lot area 286 m² (3,078 ft²) · 1 of 23

Filed code A4,032 ft²Largest built-upLot 1

The largest built-up in the scheme and the largest lot but one. Its filed lot area of 286 m² is 71% larger than the nominal 24’ x 75’ that one portal publishes as THE lot size for the whole project — which is why that portal’s lot figure matches no filed lot. The developer’s own “Starting from 20’ x 75’” is the correct and honest form.

Type A1 — lot 2

Filed built-up 3,288 ft² · filed lot area 238 m² (2,562 ft²) · 1 of 23

Filed code A13,288 ft²Lot 2

A single lot. The only type on which the portal’s built-up agrees with the filing exactly — its other six are each 1 to 2 ft² out, which is the signature of figures retyped from an image rather than read from the filing.

Types B and B1 — lots 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19

Filed built-up 3,193 ft² · filed lot area 139 m² each (1,496 ft²) · 9 of 23 — the commonest layout

Filed codes B + B13,193 ft²9 lotsIntermediate

Nine of the 23 houses. B is lots 3, 7, 11, 15 and 19; B1 is lots 5, 9, 13 and 17. These two really are interchangeable: both are 3,193 ft² on an identical 139 m² lot, and the only difference is which side of the row the house sits on. 139.35 m² is exactly 20’ x 75’, so the developer’s nominal dimension describes these thirteen intermediate lots precisely and the other ten not at all.

Types B2 and B3 — lots 4, 6, 8

Filed built-up 3,063 ft² — the smallest · filed lot areas 140, 145 and 161 m² · 3 of 23

Filed codes B2 + B33,063 ft²3 lotsSmallest built-up

This is the pair that shows why the lot number matters more than the type code. B2 is lot 6 at 140 m²; B3 is lots 4 and 8 at 145 and 161 m². All three share a built-up of 3,063 ft², but the land underneath them differs by up to 21 m² — about 226 ft². A buyer told “Type B3” does not yet know whether they are getting lot 4 or lot 8. The filing distinguishes them; the marketing does not. And this is the pair one portal mislabels “B1”, at 3,062 ft².

Types B4 and B5 — lots 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22

Filed built-up 3,350 ft² · filed lot areas 159 to 175 m² · 7 of 23

Filed codes B4 + B53,350 ft²7 lots

Seven houses. B4 is lots 10, 14, 18 and 22 (173, 164, 172 and 175 m²); B5 is lots 12, 16 and 20 (168, 159 and 175 m²). Same built-up, seven different lot areas spanning 16 m² — and the lot number is the only way to tell which one you are buying. This is the pair the same portal mislabels “B2”, at 3,349 ft².

Type C — lot 21

Filed built-up 3,418 ft² · filed lot area 211 m² (2,271 ft²) · 1 of 23

Filed code C3,418 ft²Lot 21

A single lot, and one of the ten irregular ones. At 211 m² it carries about 52% more land than an intermediate B lot on a built-up only 225 ft² larger — the pattern the filed schedule makes visible and no marketing surface does.

Type C1 — lot 23

Filed built-up 3,561 ft² · filed lot area 274 m² (2,949 ft²) · 1 of 23

Filed code C13,561 ft²Lot 23Second-largest lot

The second-largest lot in the scheme at 274 m², on a built-up 471 ft² smaller than Type A’s. Land, not floor area, is what the top of the price band is buying — and the filed schedule is the only source that lets a buyer see that.

NOT PRINTED by anybody
bedrooms and bathrooms by type · car-park BAYS · per-type prices · which lots are left

What no plan on this page will tell you

Not publishedNot transcribedAsk in writing

The only published room data on this scheme is the register’s single row: bilik: 7 and tandas: 5, scheme-wide. All ten filed types are published as 7 bedrooms and 5 bathrooms across built-ups from 3,063 to 4,032 ft², which cannot be literally true of every type — and no source anywhere breaks it down. This page does NOT transcribe room counts, internal dimensions or bedroom and bathroom splits off the drawings above. That would be this page reading a picture, not reporting a published figure, and it is exactly the kind of number a buyer would rely on. What would close it: the unit plans’ own room schedules, from the developer, in writing. Also not published anywhere: a car-park bay count per house (the filing gives only “fits up to 2 cars”, a porch capacity), any per-type price, and which of the 23 lots remain.

Ask Louis for the room schedule in writing

Plan images are the developer’s own, and their own CMS titles carry the FILED type codes — which is why publishing them with those codes intact corrects the portal without this page having to argue with it. Artist’s impressions and plans are indicative; the binding document is the sale and purchase agreement and its own schedule. Built-ups, lot areas and lot numbers above are quoted from the filed brochure. Lot areas are filed in m²; the ft² conversions are arithmetic, not filed figures.

The Maison 23, Cheras — images published by the developer

One shared caption, deliberately. The developer’s media library publishes no captions at all and leaves the alternative-text field empty on every item but one — and on that one it is wrong about the product class. So there is no published subject for any of these four images, and inventing one (“the entrance”, “the living room”) would be this page making it up. They are unnumbered and unlabelled here for that reason. One more thing worth knowing about that library: nine of the developer’s own files and CMS titles on this project carry a transposed project number — Maison 32 instead of Maison 23. Both spellings are this project’s. The filed and registered name is The Maison 23, and that is the only form used on this page.

Taman Bukit Mandarina, Cheras, Kuala Lumpur

The register refuses to answer the district question: projek.daerah is a bare - and projek.lokasi is just WP Kuala Lumpur. Two agreeing legs settle it. First, the filed plan-approval reference BP S2 OSC 2024 0232 (20), printed identically on both filed documents and on the developer’s own live panel: the BP S<n> OSC shape is a Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur building-plan reference, and DBKL has jurisdiction only inside the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur. Second, Pihak Berkuasa Yang Meluluskan Pelan is printed in WORDS as Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur on both filed documents and on the live panel, and the filed newspaper advertisement carries a separate Nama Pihak Berkuasa Tempatan (PBT) field that also reads Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur. Why it mattered enough to derive rather than assume: “Cheras South” is a different place in a different state — Mukim Kajang, Daerah Hulu Langat, Selangor — with a foreign-buyer floor of RM2,000,000 instead of RM1,000,000. One suburb word apart, and the station nearest this project sits, in Wikipedia’s own words, near the Kuala Lumpur–Selangor state border. The district was settled first and the threshold looked up second.

KPKT register and the TWO filed advertisement documents: The Maison 23, register code 30937-1

There are TWO filed documents on this project, not one — the BUTIR-BUTIR IKLAN brochure filing and the filed newspaper advertisement — and the second one carries two fields the first omits: the licensee’s company registration number and the Nama Pihak Berkuasa Tempatan. An in-directory negative control confirmed the two are real files rather than a server returning anything asked of it. Every cell below is a field on 30937-1, a line on one of those two filed documents, or a statement on the developer’s own statutory panel, read on 15 October 2026 and quoted with its own key. Nothing in this table is borrowed from a portal.

Read 15 October 2026 against KPKT 30937-1, the filed BUTIR-BUTIR IKLAN brochure, the filed newspaper advertisement, and the licensed developer’s own statutory panel. Check it yourself with the code, not the name: developer code 30937, registration 30937-1, licence 30937/12-2029/0280(N). A KPKT developer search for MASON returns ZERO and MAISON returns two licensees that are NOT this one — the licence number is the only route in.

This is marketing information compiled from public registers and from documents the licensed developer itself filed with Jabatan Perumahan Negara. It is not an offer and not a quotation. Figures, dates and areas are quoted with their source and may be superseded by the sale and purchase agreement, the price list and the issue document of title. Where the developer’s own documents disagree with each other, both readings are printed and this page adjudicates neither.

What Jadual G gives every one of these 23 houses — stated as a fact, not a hedge

All 23 houses at The Maison 23 are filed Jadual G, and this page states that flatly. pjb.jenis on 30937-1 reads Jadual G with tempohAsal: 24 Bulan; pemaju.bilanganProjek reads 1 and the serial walk closes at 30937-2; and no source anywhere — not the register, not either filed document, not the developer, not either portal — describes an office, retail or commercial component on this scheme. There is no parcel here that sits outside the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966. So for every one of the 23: the prescribed statutory Schedule G sale contract rather than a freely negotiated one; the statutory 24-month delivery period; the HDA liquidated-damages formula if that period is missed; the section 7A housing development account, into which a purchaser’s money must be paid; the statutory defect liability period running from vacant possession; and access to the Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims. Why this paragraph comes first, and why it is written as a flat statement. This site has had to re-frame project after project because a page would otherwise have implied statutory housing protection that did not in fact reach the component being sold — an office suite, a SOHO parcel, a retail podium. Here the protection exists on every unit, there is nothing to carve out, and Jadual G carries one thing a high-rise schedule does not: the sale is of the house together with its own subdivisional portion of land, on an individual title. Check it yourself with the code rather than the name: 30937-1, licence 30937/12-2029/0280(N).

Lewat with no approved extension — what the register actually says, and what it does not

Read on 15 October 2026, the register’s own status field for this scheme says Lewat — late, behind schedule. status.keseluruhan: Lewat, komponen: Lewat, peratusSiap: 69.13, and the register’s own note attributes the component status to the latest 7(f) progress report lodged in HIMS. That is a field on a government record. It is a fact, not an accusation, and this page prints it and leaves it there. What makes it unusual on this site is the field next to it. pindaanTempohSerahKosong reads Tidak, with tempohTambahanDiluluskan: -, tempohPembinaanBaharu: - and serahKosongBaharuMengikutPjbPertama: -. No delivery extension has been applied for or approved. Eleven earlier projects researched for this site were late WITH an approved extension — which means statutory relief and a new, later date. This is the first one that is late with none. The consequence is arithmetic: the original 24-month Jadual G period stands unamended, so vacant possession is contractually due on 11 March 2027 — 11 March 2025, the date of the first sale and purchase agreement, plus 24 months — and the Schedule G liquidated-damages formula runs from that date and not from a later one. And the date the page will not pretend away. The developer’s own filed completion date, on BOTH filed documents and on its own live panel, is Disember 2026. At 69.13% complete on 15 October 2026 that is about six weeks away. No source withdraws that date and no source reaffirms it, so this page does neither: it prints the filed date, the register’s contractual date, the completion percentage and the reading date, and lets you see them together. Both CCC and VP read -, so nothing on this scheme can yet be called delivered. What this page does NOT say: it does not predict a delivery date, it does not say the December 2026 date is unachievable, and it does not describe the Lewat flag as anything other than what it is — the current state of a register field, dated. Ask Louis to get the developer’s written position on the delivery date, and read the agreement’s own late-delivery clause before you sign anything.

Foreign buyers: the Federal Territory floor is RM1,000,000, all 23 clear it, and the restriction sits on TOP of that

The threshold follows the district, so the district had to be settled first. The register refuses to help — projek.daerah is a bare -. Two agreeing legs settle it: the filed plan-approval reference BP S2 OSC 2024 0232 (20), printed identically on three surfaces, whose BP S<n> OSC shape is a Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur reference; and Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur named in WORDS as the approving authority on both filed documents and on the live panel, plus a separate Nama Pihak Berkuasa Tempatan field on the filed newspaper advertisement that says the same thing. DBKL has jurisdiction only inside the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, so the applicable floor is the one in the Garis Panduan Perolehan Hartanah effective 13 July 2022: RM1,000,000, landed and high-rise alike, with consent through the Economic Planning Unit. On price, this is the cleanest pass on this site. The filed statutory band begins at RM1,775,000 — 1.78× the floor — so all 23 houses clear it. There is no partial pass to explain and no type to exclude. The Selangor figures DO NOT apply here and must not be read across. Selangor Zone 1 — which includes Daerah Hulu Langat — and Zone 2 are RM2,000,000; Zone 3 is RM1,000,000. “Cheras South” is in Hulu Langat, Selangor, and takes the RM2,000,000 floor. Same suburb word, different state, double the threshold — which is exactly why the district on this page was derived from the plan prefix rather than from the word “Cheras”. But price is not the real foreign-buyer issue on this scheme. Two other things are, and both are solicitor’s questions. First, the Sekatan Kepentingan: the land may not be transferred, leased or changed without prior approval, and for a foreign purchaser that consent sits ON TOP of the Federal Territory acquisition consent — two gates, not one. And the identity of the second gate’s keeper is unresolved on the developer’s own evidence: the filed newspaper advertisement says Pihak Berkuasa Tempatan, the live panel says State Authority, and the filed brochure truncates before naming it. Second, the lease. The title is leasehold on five surfaces and not one of them prints an expiry date or a term — the filing’s own field reads Tidak dinyatakan. A purchaser cannot compute the residual term, and on a scheme completing in 2026–27 the residual term is what decides the financing. Get a Malaysian solicitor onto both of those before you commit, and ask Louis to obtain an official land search on the parcel, which is the document that closes them.

Not published, therefore not on this page — and the document that would close each one

Fifteen things a buyer would reasonably ask about this scheme are not answered by any public source. This list is the honest part of the page, and each entry names what would close it. 1. The lease expiry date or term. FILED, and left blank: Tarikh tamat pajakan: Tidak dinyatakan. → the issue document of title, or an official land search. 2. The parent lot or PT number, and the street name. No source gives either; the filing numbers the 23 subdivisional lots 1 to 23 but no parent lot. → the Jadual G agreement’s first schedule, or a land search. 3. The project’s total land area. Not filed by anyone. One portal publishes 1.3 acres with no stated method and no source; the developer, the register, the other portal and both filed documents publish none. The 23 filed lots sum to 3,892 m² — 0.962 acre — which is a FLOOR for the parcel, not the parcel: it excludes the internal road, the entrance and the drainage reserve. So no density figure appears on this page, and no “low density” claim is made. → the approved layout plan, or a land search. 4. Who “Mason Six” is. Named on four surfaces, identified on none: no legal name, no registration number, no address, no joint-venture share. A KPKT developer search for MASON returns ZERO, so no licensed housing developer in Malaysia has that word in its name. → a company profile or search on the licensee, or the joint-venture agreement. 5. The contractor, the architect and the engineer. The filed field reads Tidak dinyatakan, and the usual fallback is structurally closed: the group states its own NON-LISTED status in its own award citation, so there is no listed employer, no contract-sum announcement and no quantity surveyor’s project page to find. → the CIDB project registration, or the building-plan submission. 6. Car-park BAYS per house. The filing gives only “fits up to 2 cars”, a porch capacity. → the approved building plan. 7. Whether the scheme is gated and guarded, and whether any maintenance charge will be levied. Two portals contradict each other and the developer says nothing. → the Jadual G agreement, and any management arrangement if one exists. 8. Bedrooms and bathrooms BY TYPE. All ten filed types are published as 7 and 5 across 3,063–4,032 ft², which cannot be literally true of every type. → the unit plans’ own room schedules. This page does not read them off the drawings. 9. Any per-type or per-lot price. The filing publishes a scheme band only. → the current price list and the sale and purchase agreement. 10. Which of the 23 lots are still available. One portal said 18 of 23 sold at 28 August 2026; the register’s bakiUnit reads Tiada data. → the developer’s current sales chart. 11. Who consents to the restriction in interest — two developer documents disagree. → the issue document of title, or the agreement’s own recital. 12. The relationship between this licensee and the township’s developer — land vendor, joint-venture party, or neither. → a land search showing the registered proprietor. 13. Any travel time, any highway distance, and any rail distance from the developer. The developer publishes no station and no distance at all. → nothing public; and this page measures nothing of its own. 14. A GDV, a density or a plot ratio. None is published and none is computed here. 15. Whether the December 2026 filed completion date is still the developer’s position, given Lewat at 69.13% six weeks out. → the developer, in writing. And one more that belongs here because it is a fact rather than a gap: this licensee has ONE project registered and ZERO completed. There is no delivery record to score, and the group’s record is not the licensee’s and is not substituted for it anywhere on this page. Louis will ask the developer in writing for any of the above.

What this page does not publish, and why

Louis Koh’s instruction about his own agency’s project materials is absolute, and this page keeps to it: no price-adjustment figure of any kind appears here — not in English, not in Chinese, not in the page body and not in its structured data. First, the one that had to be handled with care on this project, because the developer is publishing it. BOTH filed documents carry a field printed Diskaun Bumiputera, and the developer’s own live project page states a VALUE for it. The field exists; its value is withheld, and it is recorded nowhere on this page and nowhere in the research behind it. That figure being on the developer’s own public page and in its own filed advertisement is exactly what makes it easy to copy across in good faith — which is why it is named here and refused here. And the clean negative that must travel with it, because the two benign shapes were checked rather than assumed: there is NO ethnic unit quota and NO lot-title classification of that kind on any surface read for this project. What exists is a price concession, a price concession is squarely inside Louis’s rule, and it stays off this page. Second, the plain list — and on this project it is worth stating because of how short it is. No discount, no rebate, no nett price, no promotion, no freebie, no incentive and no commission figure appears anywhere on this page, in either language. And none was found either: beyond the concession field above, NOTHING of that kind appears on any surface read for this project — not on the developer’s page, not on either filed document, not in the register and not on either portal. Saying which of those two it is — found and suppressed, or simply absent — is the difference between a disclosure and a formula, and here it is genuinely absent. Third, the same answer on returns. No yield, no ROI, no rental-return, no gross-return, no leaseback and no guaranteed-rental rate appears here — and again, none exists on any surface read, so there was nothing to refuse. What this page DOES publish on price, and nothing beyond it: the filed statutory Unit Selling Price band registered with KPKT and printed on both filed documents — RM1,775,000 to RM2,550,000 — always labelled as the filed statutory band, always as ONE band for the scheme rather than a figure attached to any lot or type, and always with the same caveat: this is not a price list, it is not a quotation, and it is not an offer. That band is the SPA price range, which is the one price figure this site publishes, and it is identical on five independent surfaces. No price-per-square-foot figure is published here either, because no per-type price is filed and any such figure would be this page’s own arithmetic dressed up as a specification. For the current price list, for the sale and purchase agreement itself, and for anything that attaches to one specific lot number, speak to Louis Koh and he will get it in writing.

The licensee, the brand, and the four surfaces that name a partner nobody can identify

The licensed developer is PV M6 SDN. BHD., company registration 1391279-U, KPKT developer code 30937, holding exactly ONE registered scheme. That registration number is printed on the FILED NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENT and nowhere else — not in the register, not in the filed brochure, not on the developer’s own live panel, not on either portal. A buyer signs with PV M6 Sdn. Bhd., so this page prints the legal name. Every consumer-facing surface says the brand instead. One portal’s developer heading reads “Platinum Victory & Mason Six”; the other prints “Platinum Victory” in its KPKT panel directly above PV M6’s own licence and permit numbers; the group’s own home page lists this scheme among its developments; and the group’s own footer names Platinum Victory Sdn. Bhd. — a company whose own developer licence EXPIRED on 04/02/2015, so the entity in the footer is not a currently licensed housing developer at all. Only the statutory panel on that same page names PV M6 Sdn Bhd. Is PV M6 a group vehicle? The evidence is genuinely split, and this page says which leg points which way. Against: five of the group’s licensees share one of two address legs with each other, and PV M6 sits at NEITHER — its business address, in Solaris Mont Kiara, appears on no other group licence and is most plausibly the partner’s office. Anyone testing the question on addresses alone would get a false negative. For: its registered office is a unit inside a building in the group’s own PV <n> naming series, on the same road as another group licensee’s registration; its company name begins PV; and the group markets the project as its own, in its own prose. So “a group vehicle” is well supported — but NOT by the address fingerprint. “Mason Six” is named on four surfaces and identified on none. A KPKT developer search for MASON returns ZERO against a same-session positive control, so no licensed housing developer in Malaysia has that word in its name. No source gives it a legal suffix, a registration number, an address, a shareholding or a share of the joint venture. The obvious reading of the licensee’s name — PV plus M6 — is an inference, it is labelled as one here, and no document states it. And the reason no name search finds this project: the brand is spelt Maison and the partner is spelt Mason. They share no substring, so MAISON (two licensees, neither of them this one) and MASON (zero) both miss — and the licensee’s own name contains neither word. A search on CHERAS returns fifteen licensees and the target is in none of them. Only the licence number, read off the developer’s own statutory panel, reaches code 30937. That is why this page prints the code everywhere it prints the name.

Green ratings and awards — a clean negative, and it is stated as one

There is no green rating on this project, and the developer claims none. No GreenRE, no GBI, no QLASSIC score, nothing described as “targeting” a rating, and no logo on any surface read — the developer, both filed documents, the register and both portals. The sustainability-adjacent content on the developer’s own page is two dedicated EV-charger isolator points, which is a specification and not a certification. And on this project the negative can be stated without a limitation, which is unusual. All four GreenRE tier tables were read, plus the full Bronze certification-entry list. Each tier is readable across a window that begins before December 2023 and runs to March 2026 — and this licence was issued on 16 December 2024 with its permit on 26 February 2025. So every tier is readable across the ENTIRE period in which a certification for this project could possibly have been granted, and the oldest-end truncation in those tables cannot be hiding a row for it. The Platinum tier additionally closes cleanly. The GBI register returned a client error, as it has on every run, so GBI is INCONCLUSIVE rather than negative — but no source claims a GBI rating and the developer claims none. On awards: 29 awards are listed on the developer’s own awards page, across 2019 to 2025, and NOT ONE of them is for this project. The words “Maison” and “The Maison 23” appear nowhere on that page. Eleven belong to named high-rise schemes and eighteen are corporate awards to the company rather than to any project. Every single project-level award in that set is a high-rise award: there is not one landed award in it. So “award-winning developer” is defensible with attribution and a date; “award-winning development” is NOT, and this page does not blur the two. Three specific borrows were available and all three are refused by name. The group’s own GreenRE Gold sits on a DIFFERENT licensee, a different licence, a different registration and a different product — a high-rise in a different locality — and it is a sibling, not this project. The township developer’s GreenRE Silver certifications are on PENANG schemes by a Penang licensee. And an award published in 2026 belongs to a JOHOR project whose name shares a word with this one, by the township’s own group, about 300 km away. None of it is on this page, and naming the refusals is how you can tell. Two things worth knowing about the awards page itself, as evidence about the surface rather than about the project: it carries no 2024 heading at all, and it contains a visible spelling error in an awarding body’s name. Neither tells you anything about this scheme, and that is precisely the point of dating every award against the registration.

The Maison 23 @ Cheras: frequently asked questions

Other projects worth comparing — and what does NOT belong beside this one

Published 15 October 2026 · last verified 15 October 2026 against KPKT 30937-1, the two filed advertisement documents, the licensed developer’s own project and awards pages, the GreenRE tier tables and two third-party property portals. Marketing information, not an offer.