JUDGMENT

Russell J:

[1] This is a special case reserved for consideration of the High Court by the Rent Assessment Board under s. 10 of the Control of Rent Ordinance, 1948.

[2] The Respondent, who is the tenant of the whole of a shop house No. 43, &ang Street, kuala Lumpur, by an agreement in writing dated 1 June 1946, sublet the front portion of the ground floor (hereinafter called the premises) to one Abdul Kadir for a period of 12 months at a monthly rent of two hundred dollars.

[3] On 12 June 1946, Abdul Kadir entered into a partnership agreement in writing with one Hoe Chee Ming whereby they constituted themselves into a partnership firm, the kwong Shin Kongsi, (hereinafter called the applicants) for the purpose of carrying on business in the premises.

[4] Clause 8 of the partnership agreement reads as follows:

8. The said Abdul kadir bin kala Khan hereby declares that he holds the right of tenancy to house No. 43, &ang Street, Kuala Lumpur, for and on behalf of the partnership and undertakes to transfer the said tenancy to the partnership whenever he is required to do so by his co-partner.

[5] On the expiration of the twelve months fixed in the agreement of tenancy between the Respondent and Abdul Kadir, the Respondent took no steps to recover possession of the premises and Abdul Kadir continued in possession as a monthly tenant of the Respondent.

[6] In November 1947, the Respondent served a notice to quite upon Abdul Kadir which expired on 31 December 1947, and again in February 1948 the Respondent served a second notice to quit upon Abdul Kadir.This notice expired on 31 March 1948, Abdul Kadir still remained in possession of the premises and in April 1948, the Respondent started proceedings in the High Court to recover possession.This suit, Civil SuitNo. 31 of 1948, was eventually dismissed on the ground that the premises were controlled premises within the provisions of the Control of Rent Ordinance, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance.

[7] On 30 August 1948, Abdul Kadir retired from the partnership business leaving Hoe Chee Ming the sole proprietor of the Kwong Shin Kongsi.

[8] On 26 October 1948, the Applicants applied to the Rent Assessment Board for an order fixing the rent of the premises under s. 8(3) of the Ordinance claiming to be sub-tenants of the Respondent as from the 1 June 1947, the tenancy agreement between Abdul Kadir and the Respondent having terminated on 31 May 1947.

[9] On 11 December 1948, the applicants gave notice of an amendment in their grounds of application to the Board by which they claimed that cl 8 of the partnership agreement vested the beneficial interest of the tenancy granted to Abdul Kadir in themselves and that this clause operated as an assignment of the tenancy of Abdul Kadir to them.

[10] The Respondent was not aware that Abdul Kadir had retired from the partnership until the filing of the application before the Rent Assessment Board, and he was not aware of the partnership agreement between the Applicant and Abdul Kadir until it was disclosed in Civil Suit No. 31 of 1948.

[11] At the hearing of the application by the Board, the Board reserved for consideration by the High Court the following question of law:

(1) whether cl 8 of the partnership agreement operated as an assignment of the tenancy of Abdul Kadir to the Kwong Whin Kongsi.

(2) if not, whether the Kwong Shin Kongsi is an "other person interested" within the meaning of s. 8(3) of the Control of Rent Ordinance, 1948 and is therefore able to apply to the Board for the purpose of having the rent paid or due in respect of the premises fixed for any period and, if so, what period.

[12] As regards (1), the tenancy between the Respondent and Abdul kadir contained no restrictive covenant concerning assignment and therefore the tenancy was assignable.It was not disputed that cl 8 of the partnership agreement was an agreement to assign by Abdul kadir for valuable consideration, and it was argued on behalf of the Appli