Spenser Wilkinson J:

The plaintiff is the landlord of No. 7 Ayer Itam Road, Penang and sued the defendant, who was the tenant, for possession of the premises.Judgment was given in the Magistrate's Court against the defendant for possession.The defendant stated in evidence during the hearing that he had no sub-tenants and so the learned Magistrate, in my view quite properly, made no declaration in his Order as to whether or not the sub-tenants were bound thereby.

Execution was issued in respect of the premises but when the bailiff came to take possession he found persons other than the defendant and his family in occupation. A Notice was then issued by the bailiff and served upon the premises calling upon the occupiers to quit the premises on or before 9 September 1954, failing which force would be used to eject them.Thereupon the Petitioner, who claims to be a lawful sub-tenant, applied to the High Court for revision.

At the hearing before me Mr. Ong Huck Lim for the landlord submitted that the procedure adopted by the petitioner in applying for revision was wrong and that he should have applied for relief to the Magistrate's Court on the analogy of O. 27 of the Subordinate Courts Rules 1950 which provides for objection proceedings in cases where a third party claims goods seized in execution.He invited me, therefore, to hold that revision proceedings did not lie and to leave the petitioner to commence objection proceedings in the Magistrate's Court.

Unfortunately the Subordinate Courts Rules, like the Rules of the Supreme Court in England, do not make satisfactory provision for implementing the protection afforded by s. 14 of the Rent Control Ordinance to lawful sub-tenants.The kind of difficulty which may arise in England is indicated in the judgments of the Court of Appeal in Barclay's Bank Ltd. v. Roberts [1954] 1 WLR 1212 in which an amendment to O. 47, r. 1 of the English Rules was recommended.Whilst it is true that O. 1, r. 2 of the Subordinate Courts Rules gives wide powers to the Courts to adapt the procedure to special circumstances I think that difficulties similar to those met with in England are likely to continue here unless some modification is made to para. (d) of O. 21, r. 8 and to O. 21, r. 14(2) of the Subordinate Courts Rules and I feel impelled to suggest, therefore, that early consideration should be given by the appropriate authority to such amendments and possibly also to an amendment of O. 27.

In the meantime I think the Notice given by the bailiff in this case was defective because it gave no indication to the sub-tenants of the proper steps to take to avoid ejectment. I think the notice to be served upon occupiers of premises in cases of this kind should call upon them to apply to the Court which issues the notice within a specified time.In a case where a person claiming to be a sub-tenant had been given a clear indication of the procedure he should adopt and had ignored that indication I would hesitate to act in revision.

In the present case I do not think any good purpose would be served by forcing the petitioner to make a fresh start by way of objection proceedings; and I do not think that in the circumstances the petitioner can be blamed for adapting a procedure which was clearly open to him, especially as in a recent case revision proceedings had been successful in somewhat similar circumstances.

I therefore order that this case be remitted to the Magistrate's Court for the petitioner to be heard and for determination of the question whether or not the petitioner is a sub-tenant who is entitled to the protection of the Rent Control Ordinance.The Magistrate's Court should follow as nearly as possible the procedure laid down in O. 27, r. 5 as though the petitioner had filed a valid objection and the plaintiff had contested it.

Order accordingly.