JWD Ambrose J:

In this action the plaintiffs claim a declaration that the defendants are trespassers of that part of the premises known as No. 6 Bonham Street, Singapore, which is at present occupied by the defendants, and an injunction restraining them from further occupying the said part. Alternatively the plaintiffs claim possession of the said part.

The following facts are not disputed. One v. Mathiaparanam, formerly trading as v. Mathi & Co. was a monthly tenant of the premises from 1947. I will call him Mathi. On the 19 September 1958 Mathi was adjudicated a bankrupt and thereupon his contractual tenancy of the premises vested in the official assignee. The plaintiffs bought the premises from the previous owners on 22 May 1963. They duly determined the official assignee's contractual tenancy on 31 July 1963. In suit no 310 of 1964 they obtained a declaration against the official assignee to that effect on 22 June 1964. In the same suit they obtained a similar declaration and an order for possession against Mathi on 5 February 1955. The present plaintiffs have obtained possession of that part of the premises which not occupied by the present defendants.

It is alleged in the statement of claim that the defendants have been occupying since 20 February 1960 that part of the premises which is now occupied by them. The defendants plead that they first became tenants of that part of the premises in or about 1947 when they were granted their tenancy by the

Singapore Lighter Owners' Association and have remained in occupation ever since. They further plead that at the premises was occupied by he defendants with eleven other co-tenants, each contributing an agreed sum towards the monthly rental payable to the association. They go on to plead that in or about March 1960, the defendants at the association's request agreed thereafter to collect on the association's behalf from the defendants' co-tenants the various monthly sums payable by them and from the collection to pay a sum of $140 each month to the association's immediate landlord, Mathi, and to pay the charges for telephone, water, electricity, newspaper, caretaker, and maintenance and repairs. The defendants claim to be lawful tenants of the association and protection under ss. 26 and 27 of the Control of Rent Ordinance as statutory tenants of the plaintiffs after the determination of the official assignee's tenancy on 31 August 1963. Further and alternatively the defendants plead that in or about March 1960, the association orally assigned to them the tenancy of that part of the premises which was previously held by the association, and that the assignment was not prohibited under the terms of the association's tenancy.

In their amended reply, the plaintiffs plead as follows. In or about 1946 Mathi purported to grant a sub-tenancy to the Singapore Lighterage Co. Ltd and unincorporated body or society or an unregistered company. The purported grant was invalid and inoperative. The Singapore Lighter Owners' Association of whom the defendants and eleven other claim to have held as co-subtenant of Mathi. In the alternative, if the association was a tenant or subtenant of Mathi, the association only gave licences to the defendants and the eleven other to use various parts of the premises. In the further alternatively, if the association was a tenant or subtenant of Mathi, the oral assignment was void by reason of ss. 3 and 4 of the Statute of Frauds.

The first question for determination is whether the association ever became a subtenant of Mathi.

On this question Counsel for the plaintiffs makes the following submission. The association was an unincorporated body and an unregistered society in 1946. It was registered as a trade union on 27 September 1947. The association paid rent to Mathi from 1946 to 1 March 1946. Receipts for the rent were issued in favour of Singapore Lighterage Co. Ltd which was the name the members of the association proposed to use on incorp