Gill J:

This was an action by the plaintiff suing as executor and trustee of the estate of Lee Lip Sang deceased for the ejectment of the defendant from premises No. 15A, Jalan Perkins, Kuala Lumpur situate on land held under Certificate of Title No. 25022 for Lot No. 1753, s. 41, Township of Kuala Lumpur and for damages. The action was based on the plaintiff's contention that the defendant occupied the said premises as a licensee at all material times and that, such licence having been determined by a written notice to the defendant on 24 July 1964 requiring him to vacate the said premises on or before 31 August 1964, he had remained on the land as a trespasser.

It was common ground that Lee Lip Sang, who died on 28 November 1957, bought the land in question from the liquidator of Eu Properties (Selangor) Ltd. and Eu Tong Sen Ltd., the previous registered proprietors, under an agreement of sale dated 21 May 1957, and that in pursuance of that agreement the plaintiff became the registered proprietor as representative some time prior to 24 July 1964. The plaintiff before becoming such registered proprietor had on 15 May 1963 determined the defendant's licence and thereafter commenced proceedings for the eviction of the defendant in the sessions Court, Kuala Lumpur in civil action No. 291 of 1963, but his action was dismissed on the ground that he was not then the registered proprietor of the land.

The defence put up by the defendant to the action in this Court was that he had been in occupation of the premises during and since the Japanese occupation as a tenant, that the premises are premises within the Control of Rent Ordinance, 1956 and that by reason of the previous action in the sessions Court, Kuala Lumpur this suit was res judicata. Thus, there were three issues raised on the pleadings and the onus was on the defendant to prove that he was in fact a tenant of the premises and that the premises were subject to the Control of Rent Ordinance, 1956.

On the evidence produced by both parties before me at the trial of the action I found as a fact that the defendant went into occupation of the land in question at some time after his retirement on 30 September 1952 from the partnership business of KS Motor Service at 222-B, Pudu Road, Kuala Lumpur, and put up thereon some temporary buildings in which he has since been residing and carrying on business as a motor car repairer. In making that finding of fact I accepted in toto the evidence of Voon Jan Shin (PW 5) as to the premises in Batu Road at which the defendant was carrying on a motor repairing business under the style of Chop Onn Choon in partnership with Foo Koon Seng (the witness's brother-in-law) and another man named Yong Nam, before he shifted to Pudu Road. I regarded Voon Jan Shin as an independent witness and a totally disinterested party, although he was called by the plaintiff. It was clear from the evidence that Chop Onn Choon faced Batu Road and that the defendant used to enter it from Batu Road. The land in question, on the other hand, faced Jalan Perkins and not Batu Road. What faced Batu Road was the bungalow in which Yap Tai Nyen lived. That bungalow has since been pulled down and on its site there is now a Shell petrol station.

I rejected the evidence of the defendant that his family shifted to 15A, Jalan Perkins some time in 1947 after he removed his business to Pudu Road because I considered that part of his evidence as a deliberate lie in order to show that he has been on the land since 1947. This evidence of his, to my mind, was completely nullified by the Form B in relation to the registration of changes in business (P 12) which he filed with the Registrar of Businesses on 28 August 1953. He confirmed the accuracy of the statements made in that form, and one of the changes notified in that form was the change of his residence from 180 Main Street, &ang to 15A, Perkins Road, Kuala Lumpur.

I also found as a fact that from the time the defe