Spenser Wilkinson J:

This was an appeal against the decision of the President of the Sessions Court giving possession of certain premises occupied by the defendant to the plaintiff.

The ground upon which the order for possession was made was that the defendant had received from his sub-tenant rent in excess of 750f the rent paid to the landlord within the meaning of s. 13(1)(j) of the Control of Rent Ordinance, 1948.This provision reads as follows:

13.(1) No order or judgment for the recovery of possession of any premises comprised in a tenancy shall be made or given except in the following cases, namely -

(j) where the tenant, having sub-let the premises or part thereof, receives, in respect of such sub-letting rents (exclusive of any payment by the tenant for Municipal or Town Board services) which exceed in the aggregate 750f the rent paid by the tenant.

It is not in dispute that up till the 15 September 1952 the tenant was receiving excessive rent from the sub-tenant.On 15 September 1952 however, the tenant reduced the rent to a figure within the legal maximum.This was done just before the order of the Rent Board giving the plaintiff permission to take ejectment proceedings.The proceedings in the Sessions Court commenced on 8 December 1952 after the rent had been reduced.The notice to quit was given in May 1932 and expired on 30 June 1952.

Mr. Ong Huck Lim on behalf of the appellant argued that the words "receives... rents" in the sub-section in question relates to the time when the ejectment proceeding, commenced, and as at the time when these proceedings were commences' the tenant was not receiving an excessive rent an order for possession ought not to have been given.

In the case of KS Mohamed Ismail v. Choo Pin p. 183.Briggs J held that the test is whether at the time of the determination of the tenancy it was open to the landlord to take proceedings for ejectment on the footing of para. (j) to s. 13(1) of the Ordinance.

In Woon Guat Chin v. Lim Sian Poon p. 184.Thomson J said

Construing para. (j) strictly it seems to me that it is contravened if at any time, or at any rate, any time after the commencement of the Ordinance, the tenant has received rents amounting to more than 750 said by him to the landlord.

If the provisions of para. (j) are construed in the manner suggested by Mr. Ong Huck Lim the result would be as far as I can see that a tenant could charge his sub-tenants as much rent as he chose providing that he reduced the rent before ejectment proceedings had actually been started against him in Court.Where a statute is not clear it is permissible to look at the possible results of different constructions in order to see what the intention of the Legislature was.In my opinion it could not have been the intention of the Legislature to allow a tenant to make a profit out of his sub-tenants and then to retain that profit by the simple expedient of reducing the rent when he was threatened by the landlord with ejectment.

I think the principle indicated by the judgment of Briggs J referred to above is the correct one and that if at the date when the contractual tenancy terminates the tenant is receiving rent in excess of 750f the main rent the conditions of para. (j) to s. 13(1) are fulfilled, and the landlord is entitled to possession.In other words if, up to the time when the notice to quit terminates, the tenant has been receiving excessive rent he does not become a statutory tenant under s. 16 of the Ordinance.

For these reasons I am of opinion that the decision of the learned President was right and the appeal must, therefore be dismissed with costs.

Appeal dismissed.