Abdul Malik Ishak J:

Introduction

This was an application by fifty-two (52) plaintiffs by way of an ex partesummons-in-chambers in encl. 2 for the following orders:

(i) to injunct both the defendants whether by themselves or through their workers or agents or others fromdestroying or demolishing the houses or structures located on a piece of land known as HS(D) 49259 P.T. 899, Mukim Petaling, Negeri Wilayah Persekutuan (hereinafter referred to as the "said land") and fromsevering the supplies of water and electricity to the said land or fromevicting the plaintiffs from the said land;

(ii) costs would be costs in the cause; and

(iii) any other relief or consequential order which this Honourable Court deems fair and just.

and it was supported by an affidavit in encl. 3 that was affirmed by one Mohd Sawal bin Md. Zain ("Sawal"), the 30th plaintiff in this application. Enclosure 2 was dated 23 September 2000 and it was filed on the same day. Sawal affirmed encl. 3 on 23 September 2000 at 9.30am and it was filed on the same day at 11.45am.

Facts

Within a short compass, the facts may be stated as follows. The first defendant ? Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur, issued a notice dated 30 August 2000 to all the occupants of the said land to vacate their houses within thirty (30) days and if those occupants failed to do so consequential actions would be taken against them. The notice to vacate would expire on 30 September 2000. The occupants of the houses were the plaintiffs and they had built houses on the said land ? popularly known as Kampung Sungai Midah Dalam, Cheras, Kuala Lumpur.

The first defendant as the owner of the said land had alienated the same to the second defendant ? Syarikat Perumahan Pegawai Kerajaan Sdn Bhd. That alienation took place in 1985. There was a general averment to say that the first defendant knew that the plaintiffs were occupying the said land. There was also a general averment to the effect that the second defendant knew and was aware of the houses and structures on the said land at all material times.

Sometime in early 1990, the second defendant obtained the consent of the first defendant to develop the said land into a satellite township. There were some discussions between the plaintiffs and the defendants in regard to re-location and the compensation sums which the plaintiffs would be receiving. It was averred that in 1993, the second defendant had in actual fact assisted the plaintiffs in applying for electricity and water supplies to the said land. It was also averred that in July 1999, the second defendant conclusively informed the plaintiffs of their re-location and that the plaintiffs would be re-located at certain units of flats. There was, unfortunately, a condition attached to the offer and that was: each plaintiff was required to purchase a flat at the purchase price of RM25,000. The plaintiffs, so it was said, could not afford to purchase those flats. It was the stand of all the plaintiffs that they were promised compensation and now they were asked to purchase those flats.

An averment was made to the effect that the plaintiffs had stayed on the said land for the last 40 years with the permission of the defendants. The plaintiffs averred that they were not squatters simpliciter but rather they were licence holders and had equitable rights to the said land. The plaintiffs also gave their undertaking as to damages. For all these reasons, the plaintiffs sought for the orders as per encl. 2.

Refusal To Allow Enclosure 2

I refused to allow encl. 2. Whilst I agree that an interim ex parteinjunction against the first defendant may be obtainable on the authority of Tan Suan Choo v. Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang[1983] 1 MLJ 323, and that an interim ex parteinjunction can certainly be issued against the second defendant, yet I was cautious.

Enclosure 2 was supported by encl. 3. The application in encl. 2 depended entirely on encl. 3. I have since perused through the affidavit of Sawal in encl.