Ajaib Singh J:

This was an appeal from the decision of the learned magistrate ordering the appellant to deliver to the respondent vacant possession of land comprised in HS(D) 1089 PT No. 7 in the District of Seremban. In the statement of claim filed in the lower court the respondent averred that she was the registered proprietor of the land concerned which was alienated to her by the state authority. She averred further that the appellant had occupied a hut on the said land and alleged that the appellant was a trespasser. She had made several verbal requests and demands on the appellant to quit the land but he had failed to do so. Thereafter on or about 5 January 1973 the respondent issued a notice to the appellant to quit her land within two weeks from receipt thereof but the appellant had failed to comply with the notice to quit and she alleged that she had thus been deprived of the use of the land which the appellant had unlawfully occupied and that she had thereby suffered damage. She accordingly claimed vacant possession of the land, damages and costs of the action.

In his amended defence filed in the proceedings the appellant denied that the respondent was the registered proprietor of the land concerned. He averred that he was the lawful holder of a temporary occupation licence in respect of the land and had been in occupation of this land as such since 1952. He contended further that the issue of HS(D) 1089 PT No. 7 to the respondent by the authorities was unlawful, null and void. The appellant contended that of the land before it was alienated to the respondent but he came to know that he was there after the registration of the land in the name of the res pondent. The Assistant District Officer had told him that the appellant was in occupation of the land on a temporary occupation licence and that the licence had already been cancelled.

Two witnesses gave evidence for the appellant. First was an authorised representative of the Collector of Land Revenue. He said that by letter dated 10 April 1961 the respondent applied for a sub-division of her land in Lot 2599 Rasah. The application was approved subject to a condition that the respondent should surrender certain portions of Lot 2599 for a road reserve. Subsequently the respondent applied for the alienation of the land comprised in temporary occupation licenceNo. 850. This application was approved by the state authority subject to the payment of a premium and other items of land revenue which came to a total sum of $4,327.50. Form 5A was served on the respondent on 17 November 1966 and in accordance with the provisions in that form she was required to pay the sum of $4,327.50 within three months from the date mentioned in Form 5A which was 16 November 1966. The witness said that this amount was not paid in time and therefore the approval lapsed. He said that the respondent paid the sum on 12 October 1967 which was about eight months after the expiry of the three months allowed in Form 5A. Earlier on 15 January 1967 the respondent had applied for exemption from payment of the premium but this was rejected. This witness further stated that the land in dispute was approved to the appellant on a temporary occupation licence on 19 June 1954 and that when the application for this piece of land from the respondent was submitted to the state authority for approval no mention was made that it was already given out on a temporary occupation licence to the appellant.

The appellant in his evidence said that he had been in occupation of the land comprised in temporary occupation licenceNo. 850 since 1954 and from that year till 1967 he had been renewing the temporary occupation licence. He had also paid all the Town Council dues over the years. It was vacant land when he went into occupation and he had erected a shop house with plank walls and zinc roof at a cost of $2,700. Later he obtained water and electricity supplies at a cost of another $400 and in 1970 he carried