Raja Azlan Shah CJ (Malaya) (delivering the judgment of the Court):

The appellants orally agreed to allow the respondents to occupy their premises for so long as they wished on payment of tea-money. Two written agreements were later executed, but did not refer to the appellants' promise. Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act state that extrinsic evidence is not admissible to vary, add to or contradict the terms of a written agreement. Can the respondents enforce the promise in the light of the two sections of the Evidence Act? The learned Judge answered in the affirmative. That sums up the question raised in the instant appeal.

The facts are as follows: In 1957 the respondents were looking for premises in Kluang, Johore, to carry on the business of an eating shop. They found one at No. 11, Jalan Dato Teoh Siew Khor belonging to the appellants. But the premises was not suitable for their purpose as it was designed as a bank. Negotiation commenced with the appellants. The appellants wanted $14,000 teamoney to allow the respondents to occupy the premises. A reduction in the amount of tea-money was offered but rejected. As a result an oral agreement was reached between the p