Mohd Eusoff Chin SCJ:

[1] Golden Arches Restaurant Sdn Bhd is the owner of premises No 163 Jalan Tuanku Abdul Rahman which is subject to the Control of Rent Act 1966. The premises is occupied by a chief tenant and six subtenants. The appellant is a sub-tenant.

[2] On 12 February 1991 the owner of the premises submitted an application under s 19 of the Control of Rent Act for recovery of possession of the premises for development purposes.

[3] For the purposes of dealing with applications under s 19 of the Control of Rent Act, the Dato Bandar Kuala Lumpur had under s 4(6) of the Federal Capital Act 1960, delegated his functions to the Director and also the Deputy Director of the Valuation Department of the Dewan Bandaraya of Kuala Lumpur.

[4] The Deputy Director, Encik Wan Kat Few, having satisfied himself that the owner's application had complied with the requirements of s 19(1) of the Control of Rent Act, issued notices dated 30 April 1991 to the owner, the chief tenant and sub-tenants of the premises to be present at the office of the Valuation Department on 8 May 1991 at 9.30 am to discuss a number of matters relating to the owner's application for recovery of possession of the premises. The meeting was, however, adjourned to 14 May 1991 at the request of the appellant's learned Counsel Encik Karpal Singh.

[5] On 14 May 1991 Encik Wan Kat Few conducted an enquiry attended by the owner, tenant, sub-tenants and their solicitors. The Notes of Enquiry at pp 118 to 120 of the appeal record shows that on 14 May 1991, Encik Karpal Singh had asked Encik Wan Kat Few to let him peruse the application submitted to the owner which Encik Wan Kat Few allowed. Encik Karpal Singh apparently did not object to the application but asked if Encik Wan Kat Few could give the appellant time of more than six months to vacate the premises to which Encik Wan Kat Few said that he would initially give six months as provided under s 19(4)(b) of the Control of Rent Act and if more time was required, it had to be applied for before the expiry of the six months. Encik Wong Kat Few then ordered the tenants to vacate the premises by 13 November 1991 and that the owner to pay RM103,567.68 as compensation to the tenants.

[6] The appellant then filed an application for an order of certiorari to quash the Dato Bandar's order made on 14 May 1991. The learned High Court Judge dismissed the application for certiorari (see [1993] 2 MLRH 102, [1993] 2 MLJ 390), and the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

[7] A number of issues were raised in arguments before us by Encik Karpal Singh, the learned Counsel for the appellant.

Office Of Dato Bandar, Kuala Lumpur (Commissioner Of The City Of Kuala Lumpur)

[8] It is not disputed that from the time when the application was made until its disposal by the Deputy Director of Valuation, the office of the Dato Bandar was vacant. Section 4(7) of the Federal Capital Act, 1960 provides as follows:

4.(7) Where the Commissioner is prevented from carrying out his functions, exercising his powers, or discharging his duties by sickness, absence or any other cause, or where the office of the Commissioner is for any period vacant, the Secretary General of the Ministry of the Federal Territory, or such other public officer as may be authorised in writing by the Minister shall carry out the functions, exercise the powers and discharge the duties of the Commissioner.

[9] Encik Karpal Singh stated that at the relevant period there was in existence a Secretary General of the Ministry of the Federal Territory. He was of the view that s 4(7) of the Federal Capital Act 1960 requires that the Secretary General or other public officer must be authorised by the Minister to carry out the functions, exercise the powers and discharge the duties of the Dato Bandar. He submitted that there is no evidence that the Minister had authorised the Secretary General under s 4(7) of the Federal Capital Act 1960, and because of that the Secretary General could