[1] The plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) had filed a claim against the defendant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) for arrears of rental. In order to resolve the suit the High Court had to determine whether a binding tenancy contract existed between them in the first place. The answer at the end of the hearing was in the positive and the learned judge accordingly allowed the claim. Being dissatisfied the appellant filed a notice of appeal and we heard the appeal. We unanimously allowed the appeal with costs.

[2] To appreciate the appeal we herewith reproduce the agreed facts and they are as follows:

[3] The appellant was the tenant of the ground floor to the third floor of a four storey shop-house known as no. 142, Jalan 2/3A, (Pasar Borong Development) 68100 Batu Caves, Kuala Lumpur (the premises). The respondent was the registered owner of the premises. Both the appellant and the respondent had entered into a tenancy agreement on 24 April 1995, spanning three years starting from 15 January 1995, with a monthly rental of RM8,000. It would determine on 14 January 1998. The appellant used the premises as a bank and any business rel