Raja Azlan Shah Ag CJ (Malaya):

[1] 27 Birch Road, Seremban is an ordinary one-storey shop-house. It was built before 1948 and therefore subject to the Control of Rent Act. Prior to 1962 the appellant's father was the tenant of the whole shop-house. He carried on the family business dealing in textile and cosmetics under the style of Kwong Fatt on the ground floor. The family lived on the first floor. In 1962 the appellant and the father jointly bought the said shop. They continued with the family business as before. On 27 July 1968 he entered into a written agreement with the respondent allowing the latter to occupy the front left one-half portion measuring 40 ft in length and a middle portion measuring 5½ ft. by 18 ft, both on the ground floor, for a period of 10 years from 15 September 1968 at a monthly rent of $170 payable in advance. It was also agreed that the respondent should share with the appellant and his family the use of the kitchen, bathroom and toilet which were situated at the back of the ground floor.

[2] For a while all went well. The parties were on good terms Although the key to the front door was always kept by the appellant, he was always ready and willing to open it for the respondent and his employees whenever required to do so. The respondent alleged that he was entitled under the terms of the agreement to a set of keys, but that was denied by the appellant. He had on several occasions asked for it but was turned down. The issue seemed not to be important then. He was allowed under the terms of the agreement to build two cubicles and doors to the middle portion for the purpose of keeping patent medicines and Chinese drugs and to fix a wash basin in one of the cubicles. Rents were paid and receipts were issued and that was so even after 1972.

[3] Trouble started in April 1972 when the appellant installed a cupboard right across the common passage-way causing a partition of the ground floor, and thus obstructing the said passage-way. The respondent objected to the intrusion and on 15 April 1972 wrote a letter asking the appellant to remove it. Old matters were then brought up. The respondent pursued his request for a set of keys to the front door otherwise he said he would install his own lock. The appellant replied saying he put up the partition because he had been losing stocks from his shop. He accused the respondent of committing breaches of the tenancy agreement, eg, failing to pay rent punctually, committing acts of nuisance in allowing his employees to sleep on the premises and allowing them to practise karate at night. On 5 June 1972, the respondent demanded the return of $15,000"tea-money" which he said he paid the appellant as a condition of the tenancy agreement. He further accused the appellant with installing more cupboards on June 4, thus partitioning the shop further, and causing further inconvenience and annoyance.

[4] On 15 June 1972 the respondent filed the present suit claiming for the return of the said $15,000 and for an order that the appellant deliver to him a set of keys to the main door of the premises. The appellant counter-claimed for possession of the premises alleging breaches of the tenancy agreement. In an amended defence and counter-claim, he charged the respondent with installing separate electricity and water meters and a separate lock to the front door. His argument was based on three main grounds. First, it was said that the agreement was only a sharing arrangement under possessory licence of the sub-let portion, the kitchen, bathroom and toilet, plus the electricity and water meters, and as the respondent was never allowed exclusive occupation of any part of the said premises, the appellant throughout having the key to the main door, whereby he had dominion and control of the premises sub-let, the Control of Rent Act, 1966 had no application. Secondly, it was said that the said licence was void under s 222(4) of the National Land Code owing to non-registration and