Winslow J:

The plaintiffs claim possession of the land and premises known as No. 3 Branksome Road, Singapore of which they are now the landlords and the defendant the tenant. The said tenancy was determined by a notice to quit dated 29 October 1965. The plaintiffs' contention is that the defendant is not entitled to claim protection under the Control of Rent Ordinance (Cap. 242) on the ground that the defendant or any other person or persons occupying the premises under him has or have been guilty of using or permitting the use of the said premises for illegal or immoral purposes.

The defendant denies that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover possession on this ground or at all and denies in particular that the premises had ever been used as a brothel or were currently being used as a brothel or for illegal or immoral purposes. The defendant further admits receiving the notice to quit dated 29 October 1965. The defendant has also filed a counterclaim for certain sums of money alleged to have been paid to the plaintiffs in excess of that lawfully due. But since the standard rent of the premises, viz. $150 per month is not in dispute, I was informed by Counsel for the parties that I need not be concerned with this aspect of the matter at this stage. The plaintiffs concede that the defendant is entitled to $4,000 from the plaintiffs but that the plaintiffs are entitled to set off against this amount a sum of $150 per month.

The sole issue, therefore, with which I am concerned in this action, is whether the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs taken in conjunction with the evidence of denial of illegal or immoral user of the premises satisfies me that the premises were used or permitted to be used for illegal or immoral purposes before the issue of the writ on 28 January 1966. If so, the plaintiffs would be entitled to recover possession.

A preliminary objection was taken at the commencement of the hearing by Mr. LAJ Smith, Counsel for the defence, to the introduction of any evidence relating to such user prior to 27 October 1965 the date on which a judgment by consent in Suit No. 1457 of 1965 was obtained by the plaintiffs against Hardial Singh, who was then the principal tenant whilst the present defendant was merely his sub-tenant. In that suit the plaintiffs had sought to recover possession from Hardial Singh on two grounds, one of which alleged illegal or immoral user. The consent judgment, however, proceeded on the basis that this ground was disputed, Hardial Singh having consented with regard to the other ground with which I need not be here concerned. Mr. Smith accordingly argued that, by virtue of that judgment which contained no declaration under s. 26 of the Control of Rent Ordinance whether that judgment was or was not enforceable against the present defendant, no evidence could be given in the present action of events relating to user before 27 October 1965. As against this submission, Mr. DES Chelliah, Counsel for the plaintiffs, argued that that order of Court was interlocutory only, that the plaintiffs had not abandoned the ground of illegal or immoral user, that Suit No. 1457 of 1965 was still outstanding and that when that suit is finally determined, the Court would direct its mind to whether the order should be made enforceable against the sub-tenant. It should be remembered that the defendant's attention was drawn to the consent judgment, a copy of which was forwarded to his Counsel on 29 October 1965 (see AB57) and that in this present action, he is being sued as tenant and not as sub-tenant.

Section 26(1) of the Ordinance provides as follows:

Where any order or judgment for the recovery of possession has been obtained against any tenant of premises, such order or judgment shall not be enforceable against any sub-tenant of such tenant unless the Court in satisfied that such tenant was prohibited by the terms of his tenancy from sub-letting or that such sub-tenant has used the premises f