Raja Azlan Shah J:

This is an application by the defendants (the present trustees of the Sri Maha Mariamman Temple) to stay the proceedings in this action and send all the matters in dispute and which are alleged in the claim to arbitration under s. 5 of the Arbitration Ordinance, 1950.

The plaintiff's case is simple and does not require elaborate discussion. In 1948 his predecessor in title leased to the defendants' predecessors a piece of land with a building (rent-controlled) on it as trustees of the said temple for a fixed period. The lease contained, inter alia , a covenant to keep the said building and other fixtures in good and tenantable repair and condition and the terms of the lease are binding upon the successors in title of both parties. The original rent was $355 per month but the lease was renewed from time to time and at the time material to the present action the rent had been increased to $533.87. Sometime in 1957, the plaintiff determined the lease and thereafter the defendants' predecessors remained in possession as statutory tenants. It was in that year that the defendants' predecessors entered into a fresh agreement with the plaintiff's predecessor and covenanted, among other things, to paint and white-wash the said building from time to time and when appropriate. The plaintiff now alleged that the defendants or their predecessors had failed to perform and observe the aforesaid covenants under the lease and the subsequent agreement. In February 1965 the fifth defendant as chairman of the said temple gave notice to determine the tenancy with effect from 31 January 1965, but vacant possession was not delivered until August 1965. The plaintiff accordingly issued a writ claiming double rent for the period February 1965 to August 1965, damages for breach of covenants, and other consequential reliefs. The defendants, the present trustees of the temple, made an application to stay the action and send the matters in dispute to arbitration under s. 5 of the Arbitration Ordinance, 1950. They say that the matters in dispute are within the scope of an arbitration clause which is in these terms:-

3. (e) If any dispute or difference shall arise between the Lessor and the Lessee touching any clause matter or thing whatsoever herein contained or the operation or construction thereof or any matter or thing in any way connected with the lease of the rights duties or liabilities of either party under or in connection with this lease, then and in every such case the dispute or difference shall be referred to a single arbitrator in case the parties agree upon one and otherwise by two arbitrators one to be appointed by each party and in either case in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the 'Arbitration Enactment' or any statutory modification thereof for the time being in force."

In order to bring themselves within the provisions of s. 5 of the Ordinance (in substance the same as s. 4 of the English Arbitration Act, 1889) they have to satisfy the Court that the matters in dispute and the differences in the present action arose out of the said lease and are matters within the scope of the arbitration agreement; that there is no sufficient reason why the said matters should not be referred to arbitration in accordance with the agreement; that the application was made by a party to the agreement or by some person claiming through or under such a party; that they have not taken any further step in the present action beyond entering appearance; and that at the time when the action was commenced they were and still remain ready and willing to do all things necessary to the proper conduct of the arbitration. They therefore filed an- affidavit in which they deposed all the five conditions as required by the section. That being so, it is now on the party, that is the plaintiff, who wants to keep out of arbitration to satisfy the Court that there are good grounds for the case to proceed: see 2 Halsbury's Laws of