Wan Suleiman FJ:

In the trial Court one Wee Phor Tin alias Wee Hian Thin, father of the present appellant sued the present respondents for vacant possession of premises No. 3599, Jalan Ismail, Kota Bahru, alleging that they were trespassers. The respondents were previously tenants of the aforementioned Wee Phor Tin who on 29 December 1975 issued a notice to quit to respondents, the notice expiring on 1 March 1976. In his pleading Wee Phor Tin alleged that having received the notice, the respondents continued to hold over as trespassers.

The respondents denied that they were trespassers but alleged that they were tenants of the premises for a term of years by virtue of an agreement, and counter-claimed for specific performance of that agreement. In his reply Wee Phor Tin denied the existence of such an agreement and pleaded that the respondents were at all material times his monthly tenants. Later the statement of claim was amended, it being admitted that there was an agreement in writing between the parties, "purporting to be a lease for 10 years". After the close of the case for Wee Phor Tin (plaintiff in the Court below), the hearing took an unexpected turn. The former a