Raja Azlan Shah FJ:

On 26 August 1973 the plaintiff obtained judgement against the defendant in the High Court at Kota Bharu for immediate vacant possession of premises No. 40, Jalan Market, Pasir Mas and costs. The defendant continued to be in possession and has sublet the ground floor as a restaurant. The plaintiff continued to pay the rent at the rate of $110 pm ever since the termination of the partnership on 31 May 1970 for fear that the tenancy would be terminated by the landlord for arrears of rent.

The defendant has appealed against the said judgment but has not yet paid the costs of the High Court action.

On 30 September 1973 the defendant applied for a stay of execution. The plaintiff did not object but asked for security for the unpaid costs below and costs of the appeal. The Judge has jurisdiction to order a conditional stay e.g. the defendant to provide security for past costs, but he granted an unconditional stay. He has clearly no jurisdiction to order further security for costs of the appeal. That is the province of a Federal Court Judge (s. 44 Courts of Judicature Act, 1964).

The plaintiff now comes before this Court. His application which was filed on