Raja Azlan Shah J (stated the facts and arguments set out in the headnote above, and continued):

The plaintiffs' claim in CS 464/69 being based on the sublease executed in favour of the first and second plaintiffs and in CS 514/69 being based on the sub- sublease executed in favour of the three plaintiffs, it must first be determined whether these leases are valid in order that the plaintiffs are entitled to challenge the rights of the defendants over the same piece of land. This point can be shortly disposed of on the analogy that a person cannot grant a valid tenancy to himself or to himself and another. (See Chew Khan V. Lam Weng Yoon & Anor.. Accordingly, the sub-sublease in CS 514/ 69 executed by the first two plaintiffs in favour of themselves and the third plaintiff is invalid and since CS 514/69 cannot stand for this reason, there remains only CS 464/69, the sublease of which is not affected by the invalid sub-sublease in CS 514/69. The sublease in CS 464/69 being registered on 7 February 1969 is effective to transfer the rights of the first, second and third defendants to the first and second plaintiffs.

However, the fourth and fifth defendants claim that all su