VT Singham JC:

Plaintiffs' Claim For Summary Possession Under Order 89 RHC 1980

By an originating summons dated 30 March 2000 (encl. 3), the plaintiffs applied under O. 89 of the Rules of the High Court 1980for an order to recover the land known as H.S.(D) L & M 12195 PT 12613 in the Mukim Assam Kumbang, District of Larut & Matang, Negeri Perak (hereinafter referred to as "the said lot") against the 1st and 2nd defendants and occupiers of the said lot and being occupied by the 1st and 2nd defendants and the other occupiers. The grounds of the plaintiffs' application is supported by an affidavit affirmed on 20 March 2000 by Mr. Toh Chin Hin, a director of the plaintiffs-company. By the affidavit in support of the application, the plaintiffs inter alia, have stated as follows:

Affidavit Of The Plaintiffs Dated 20 March 2000 In Support Of The Application (Enclosure 2)

(a) the plaintiffs are the registered owners of the said lot and exhibited a copy of title to the said lot which was marked as exh. 'TP1'.

(b) that the defendants and all the other occupiers of the said lot have at all material times been living on the said lot without licence, permission and/or agreement from the plaintiffs and exhibited a copy of the plan of the location of the said lot which is occupied by the defendants which was marked as exh. 'TP2'.

(c) that the 1st defendant is living on premises known as No: KB 14E and the 2nd defendant is living on premises No: KB 23A and referred to the plan of the location and the plaintiffs do not know the other occupiers of the premises on the said lot.

(d) that the defendants are in fact not tenants or tenants holding over and have entered into the said lot and continued to live without consent or agreement of the plaintiffs or without consent or agreement from any of the previous owners of the said lot.

(e) the plaintiffs have on several occasions claimed from the defendants and/or each and every occupiers of the said lot to vacate the said lot and to return possession to the plaintiffs which claim was done through the plaintiffs' solicitors who issued a notice of claim dated 3 December 1999 against the defendants but the defendants have failed, refused and/or breached to comply with the said notice and a copy of the said notice was attached and marked as exh. 'TP3'.

(f) as the registered owner of the said lot, the plaintiffs are not prevented from making this application.

In the circumstances, the plaintiffs prayer in the originating summons is for the plaintiffs to be granted possession of the said lot occupied by the defendants and/or other persons who are occupying without permission or agreement and costs. In the meantime, it is important to mention at this stage that on 26 June 2000, the plaintiffs had obtained judgment against the 2nd and 3rd defendants by default as they were absent.

1st Defendant's Affidavit-In-Reply Dated 26 June 2000 (Enclosure 17)

a) the 1st defendant on the other hand, by an affidavit affirmed on 26 June 2000 has inter alia, denied the allegations of the plaintiffs as contained in their affidavit dated 20 March 2000 and that he has no knowledge that the plaintiffs are the registered owners of the said lot.

b) that he has applied for a housing lot on the government land in which his house has been constructed since 1976 and that he was directed to complete the Form only in 1989 and attached a copy of the said application Form from the Land Office Taiping and a copy of the receipt for submitting the said application.

c) that he has been paying assessment for his house to Majlis Perbandaran Taiping since 1984 and attached copies of the receipts for the said payment which was marked as exh. S2.

d) despite several request the Land Office has todate failed and/or refused to issue the title to his house.

e) he was surprised when he was informed that the plaintiffs have been given title to his said land pursuant to a Title which was issued in 1999.

f) that the Land Office did not negotia