Abdul Malek Ahmad J:

[1] The Hollywood Hotel had been operating at Nos 72, 74 and 76 Chamberlain Road, now Jalan CM Yusof, in Ipoh since 1958 and now, as the seventh respondent, had been sued with six others, who are its managing partners, by the appellant, its new owner who runs Rahman Restaurant next door at No 78, for failing to quit the premises when asked to do so by him on 22 April 1993. The second respondent had never participated in the proceedings at any stage.

[2] For this appeal, the issue appeared to be simple enough and that is whether the respondents should be allowed to amend their pleadings at this juncture.

[3]Order 20 of the Rules of the High 1980 provides for amendments to be made to the writ and pleadings once at any time before the pleadings are deemed to be closed without the leave of the Court and also for the Court to allow at any stage of the proceedings any party to amend their pleadings on such terms as to costs or otherwise as may be just and in such manner as it may direct.

[4] By a sale and purchase agreement dated 22 September 1992, the appellant had purchased premises Nos 72, 74, 76, 78, 80, 82, 84, 86, 90, 92 and 94 Jalan C.M. Yusof from Loke Wai Yat Realty (Perak) Sdn Bhd (hereinafter 'the vendor') for RM4,375,000 subject, as regards Nos 72, 74 and 76, to a month to month tenancy between the respondents and the vendor at RM5,100 a month.

[5] By letter dated 24 March 1993, the appellant had informed the respondents that the rental for Nos 72, 74 and 76 would be raised to RM25,000 a month with effect from 1 April 1993. By another registered letter dated 22 April 1993, which was in fact a notice to vacate, the appellant agreed to allow the respondents to continue renting the premises on condition that they pay the new rental of RM25,000 a month on or before the tenth day of every month and that the rental would be on a month to month basis with the requirement of one month's notice to terminate the tenancy. If the conditions were not agreed to, the appellant had given the respondents the notice to quit by 31 May 1993.

[6] The fifth respondent had offered rental of RM20,000 a month and had furnished the relevant details to prepare a new tenancy agreement but had subsequently refused to go ahead with his offer By letter dated 29 June 1993, in reply to the appellant's letter dated 22 April 1993, the respondents had imposed the following conditions if they were to accept the appellant's offer namely:

(a) the tenancy would be for a minimum period of two years from the date of the signing of the tenancy agreement;

(b) the rental would be RM13,000 a month including a car park from the date of the signing of the tenancy agreement;

(c) the appellant would undertake to buy over all the movable items including air conditioners and television sets, and to pay compensation this being the costs for all renovation works at the present market price to be verified by an independent competent valuer at the termination of the tenancy.

[7] The appellant, as expected, did not agree with the proposed conditions and told the respondents to vacate the premises. The respondents refused to do so and continued to occupy the premises at the existing rental of RM5,100 payment of which had been refused by the appellant each time it was tendered on the ground that he had already increased the rental to RM25,000 with effect from 1 April 1993.

[8] As the situation had continued to the present day, the appellant had in his statement of claim dated 9 July 1993 prayed for an order for vacant possession by the respondents of the said premises within 30 days of the order, damages at RM25,000 a month with effect from 1 April 1993, interest, costs and other relief. This was amended on 10 November 1993 where the prayer for damages gave the alternative date of 1 June 1993 for vacant possession, depending obviously on which letter the Court would hold as the relevant notice to quit.

[9] In their statement of defence dated 3 May 1994, the thi