Mokhtar Sidin JCA:

The appellant in this appeal was the defendant when the action commenced in the Sessions Court and the respondent was the plaintiff. The respondent in his reamended statement of claim claimed that he is the landlord of the premises known as No. 335, Jalan Tuanku Abdul Rahman, Kuala Lumpur (hereinafter referred to as the "said premises"). The respondent let the said premises to one Tan Ah Poh (deceased), who was the father of the appellant. Some time in November 1985, the appellant represented to the respondent's PA (respondent's son) that the appellant wanted to do minor repairs to the said premises. In December 1985, contrary to what he had said, the appellant carried out major repairs and renovations of the said premises without the respondent's consent and without the approval from the relevant authorities whereby the respondent claimed that the repairs and the renovations would expose the respondent to penalty or fine by the relevant authorities. The respondent claimed that when the said premises was let to the late appellant's father it was for the purpose of carrying on business of a licensed boarding house. The respondent claimed that the appellant had ceased to carry on the business of a licensed boarding house and since 15 August 1988 was not residing at the said premises any longer. In addition respondent discovered that the appellant, without the respondent's knowledge, had sublet the said premises to a sub-tenant who was carrying on the business of an eating shop.

In view of the breach the respondent by a notice in writing dated 18 February 1986 demanded the appellant to quit and deliver vacant possession of the said premises on or before 31 March 1986. The appellant refused and failed to deliver vacant possession whereby the respondent took up the present action.

The appellant in his statement of defence admitted doing some repairs and renovations to the said premises and that the said premises was solely a business premises and as such falls within s. 16(2) of the Control of Rent Act 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). Appellant pleaded that at all material times before and after 15 August 1985 he has been carrying on the business of hotel and food catering under a partnership in the name and style of International Hotel. Further, appellant pleaded that there was no notice to quit dated 18 February 1986 and even if there was such a notice, that notice was invalid because it was issued without just cause and justification.

In the Sessions Court the respondent succeeded in his claim and he was given vacant possession of the said premises. The claim for double rent from 26 May 1986 till delivery of vacant possession was allowed but instead the Sessions Court judge limited the amount under that claim to RM100,000.

Being dissatisfied with that decision the appellant appealed to the High Court. The respondent also being dissatisfied with the decision of the Sessions Court judge in limiting the claim of double rent, cross-appealed. The High Court dismissed the appeal by the appellant and allowed the cross-appeal by the respondent. In the High Court the appellant raised three issues, namely:

1. validity of termination of tenancy of appellant/defendant;

2. whether respondent has succeeded to prove his case under s. 16(1)(i) of the Act; and

3. whether respondent has succeeded to prove his case under s. 16(1)(k) of the Act.

The same issues were raised before us in this appeal. In addition to these three issues, the appellant raised the issue of the cross-appeal by the respondent in the High Court.

First Issue: Validity Of Termination Of Tenancy Of Appellant

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the notice dated 18 February 1986 was never received by the appellant. Appellant admitted receiving three previous letters but not the notice (exh. P5). In the Sessions Court evidence was adduced by the respondent that letters, namely exhs. P2, P3 and P4 were sent by the respon