JUDGMENTBY: THOMSON CJ, RIGBY AND ONG JJ

THOMSON CJ This is an appeal from a decision of the High Court setting aside a decision of the Rent Assessment Board for Kuala Lumpur.

The appellant, whom I shall call the landlord, is the owner of rent-controlled premises of which the respondents are the tenants. On 1st February, 1958, the Board granted the landlord a certificate for the purposes of section 12(1) (m) of the Control of Rent Ordinance, 1956, to the effect that the Board was satisfied that she intended to demolish the premises in question for the purposes of rebuilding and that in its opinion it was in the public interest that she should be permitted to do so. The certificate was subject to the condition that the landlord should obtain similar certificates in respect of adjoining premises owned by her.

The tenants appealed to the High Court against that decision of the Board and the appeal was allowed. The landlord has now appealed against the decision of the High Court and her ground of appeal is that the original appeal to the High Court was on points of fact and not on any point of law and therefore was one which the High Court was not competent to entertain by reason of section 11 of the Ordinance which only gives a right of appeal on a point of law.

In the original proceedings before the Rent Assessment Board the evidence given by and on behalf of the landlord was uncontradicted.

The landlord is the owner of premises at Nos: 71, 73 and 75 Batu Road, Kuala Lumpur, of which the respondents are the tenants of No: 71. The premises are what are known as shophouses, that is to say single storey buildings of which the lower portions are shops and the upper portions are normally residential and, although among the oldest buildings in Kuala Lumpur, are apparently structurally sound. Batu Road is a narrow busy thoroughfare in the heart of Kuala Lumpur which is as familiar to the Judges of this Court as is the western end of Fleet Street to Her Majestys Judges in England. The landlord also owns a piece of land in another busy part of Kuala Lumpur about a mile from the Batu Road premises. Her husband owns a textile business managed by a son and owns 40 houses in Broadrick Road and Thamboosamy Road in the same part of Kuala Lumpur. The landlords own property had been charged to a bank for about eighteen months to secure a running overdraft of$ 35,000 for the purposes of the husbands textile business but the husbands property is unencumbered.

The landlord and her son said that it was their intention to demolish the premises at 71, 73 and 75 Batu Road and replace them with a 7-storey building to be set back from Batu Road 20 feet further than the existing premises and that they had agreed to surrender this 20 feet to the Municipality for the purpose of road widening. In pursuance of this intention they had had prepared by a firm of architects a series of five plans including site and building plans (which were put in evidence), they had taken successful steps to have these approved by the Municipality and they had commenced proceedings similar to the present proceedings against the tenants of No. 73 and No. 75. The estimated cost of the scheme was about $ 350,000 and they were satisfied that they could easily raise this amount on the security of the property of the family.

The Town Planning Officer of the Kuala Lumpur Municipality said that the proposed building scheme was in accordance with the Municipal Councils development plan for the central area of the town which involved the widening of Batu Road by 20 feet. It was not the intention of the Council to enforce re-building in accordance with this plan immediately but a number of buildings had already been erected or were proposed to be erected in accordance with it and the re-building scheme proposed by the present appellant would be a step towards it. He also said it would provide increased office space in the town for which there was a demand. He concluded that it was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document