Wan Adnan J:

This is an application by the defendants under O. 14 of the Rules of the High Court for the following orders:

(a) For a declaration that the bare licence given to the plaintiffs to remain in the said premises has been validly terminated and that the said plaintiffs occupy the said premises as trespassers;

(b) An order that the plaintiffs be ordered forthwith to vacate premises No. 306-K, Macalister Road, Penang (the said premises) by delivering up peaceable vacant possession of the said premises to the defendants and/or its servants or agents;

In this action the plaintiffs claim for the following orders:

(a) An injunction to restrain the defendants from evicting the plaintiffs from the said premises and transferring the said property;

(b) A declaration that the defendants are holding the said property on trust for the plaintiffs;

(c) A declaration that the plaintiffs are protected tenants of the said premises;

(d) Damages for breach of covenent for quiet enjoyment;

(e) A declaration that the plaintiffs have an equity/equitable interests in the said property;

(f) A declaration that any sale of the said property shall be subject to the tenancy, equity and trust in favour of the plaintiffs;

(g) Costs

(h) Further or other relief

The 1st plaintiff is the widow of one Doraisamy @ Durisamy s/o Nagoo Servai (the deceased) who died in 1982. The 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th plaintiffs are the children of the marriage between the 1st plaintiff and the deceased. The defendants are the half-brothers of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th plaintiffs. The said deceased, the plaintiffs and the defendants had resided together at the premises No. 306-K Macalister Road, Penang situated on lot No. 303 Town Subdivision 4 North East District Penang (the said property) during the lifetime of the deceased. After the death of the deceased the 1st, 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs and the defendants continued to occupy the said property.

By an Indenture of Conveyance dated 25 August 1931 the said property was transferred by the defendants' grandmother to the deceased for the term of his natural life and thereafter unto the defendants as joint-tenants in fee simple. At this date the deceased had not yet married the 1st plaintiff. The deceased died on 2 August 1982. On 10 March 1986 the defendants obtained the order of the Court vesting the said property in the defendants' joint names. The said order was duly registered at the Registry of Land Title Penang on 7 July 1986. Final Title under the National Land Code had been issued to the defendants.

The plaintiffs contend that they have equitable interests in the said property. They say they are protected by proprietary and promissory estoppel. They also say they have a licence coupled with an equity in the said property. In the affidavit affirmed by D. Ganapathy the 2nd plaintiff on 2 November 1989, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs said that they lived with the deceased at the said property and after his death continued to live there in the belief that the deceased was the legal owner of the property and that they had succeeded to it together with the defendants. During the lifetime of the deceased they had the expectation that as his heirs they would inherit part of the said property and had spent money on improving the said property. The deceased did nothing to dispel this belief. The defendants did not inform them that the said property vested in them after the death of the deceased. Over the years they had purchased building materials and engaged workers to carry out repairs, renovation and extension. They had also contributed towards payments of quit rent and assessment. Exhibited to the affidavit as Ex. S2 are a number of bills in respect of materials purchased during the period from 1973 to 1981. The total value was RM1,312. They say that most of the bills were not kept.

In the alternative the 1st, 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs claim that they are tenants protected by the Control of Rent Act and in the further