Ambrose J:

This action was instituted on 22 June 1964 for the purpose of setting aside a consent judgment given on 16 July 1957 in Suit 1100 of 1955 and re-opening the litigation which was thereby brought to an end.

The previous action concerned the premises known as 99 and 101 Anson Road, Singapore, which were damaged by bombs at the end of 1941 and repaired and renovated or rebuilt in 1952 and 1953. The landlords, Straits Cabaret (1953) Ltd. leased the premises on 2 March 1954 to Lee Sock Goh, a married woman, for a term of ten years, at a monthly rent of $400 for the premises and $600 for the furniture. On 5 July 1955 the landlords commenced Suit 1100 of 1955 against the tenant claiming possession of the premises and arrears of rent amounting to $7,042.37. The action came on for hearing on 21 February 1957. It was then ordered by consent that these two issues be tried first:

(1) Are the Premises subject to the Control of Rent Ordinance?

(2) Was rent in fact in arrears at the date the lease was purported to be forfeited?

The trial proceeded on 21 and 22 February 1957 and was then adjourned. When the trial was resumed on 16 July 1957 Counsel for the tenant admitted that the premises were new premises and, therefore, not subject to the Control of Rent Ordinance. The action was compromised, and judgment was given in accordance with the agreement between the parties.

The terms of the consent judgment are as follows:-

This action having come on for hearing before The Honourable Tan Ah Tah, Esq, Puisne Judge, on 21 and 22 February 1957 and again on this day, in the presence of Counsel for the plaintiffs and for the defendant, and upon hearing the evidence adduced, and upon hearing what was alleged by Counsel for the plaintiffs, and upon Counsel for the defendant having now signified the con sent of the defendant hereto THIS COURT DOTH ORDER AND ADJUDGE that the plaintiffs do recover against the defendant possession of all that the land and premises known as ' The Straits Cabaret' at 99 and 101 Anson Road, Singapore, (being the property comprised in Government Resurvey Lot 147 of Town Subdiv XXIII) AND IT IS ORDERED that the defendant do give the plaintiffs possession of the said land and premises forthwith but provided that during the residue of the term of years created by the lease of the said premises made between the parties hereto and dated 2 March 1954 such judgment and order for possession shall not be enforceable unless the rent of the said premises and for the trade and other fixtures and fittings referred to in the said Lease at the rate of $1,000 per month as from 1 August 1957 has not been paid by 21 of any month following upon written demand served on the defendant in accordance with cl 6(c) of the said lease before 14 of that month, in which event the plaintiffs are to be at liberty to apply to the Judge for leave to issue execution on this judgment and order AND THE COURT MAKES NO. FURTHER ORDER in respect of the relief sought in the statement of claim herein AND MAKES NO. ORDER as to the costs of the action or of the said counterclaim AND IT IS LASTLY ORDERED that the parties shall be at liberty to apply."

Under the terms of the consent judgment, the tenant should have vacated the premises on the expiry of the lease, that is, on 29 February 1964. But the tenant remained in possession after that date. The landlords accordingly applied to a Judge by summons in chambers dated 9 April 1964 for an order that the tenant deliver possession of the premises to the landlords forthwith. An order was made as prayed on 24 April 1964. The tenant appealed against that order to the Federal Court. And the Federal Court dismissed the appeal on 15 September 1964*.

Subsequently, Counsel for the tenant applied by motion in the present action for an order restraining the landlords from recovering possession of the premises until after the trial of the action. I am now concerned solely with the issue of estoppel raise d