Lord Lane (delivering the judgment of the Board):

This is an appeal from a majority decision of the Federal Court of Malaysia given on 13 November 1976 dismissing the appellants' appeal from a decision of Chang Min Tat J in the High Court at Kuala Lumpur on 3 May 1976. By that decision the learned Judge had in effect granted the respondents' application for summary judgment and had ordered the appellants to give up possession of the Station Hotel Kuala Lumpur (referred to hereafter as "the premises') to the respondents. He also made certain consequential orders which it is unnecessary to describe.

Although there were a number of matters canvassed before the learned Judge, by the time the case reached this Board only two issues remained alive: -

(1) whether, as the Judge and the Federal Court had decided, the premises were exempted from the provisions of the Control of Rent Act, 1966 s. 4(2)(b), and if so

(2) whether the Judge was correct in dealing with the respondents' application as a proceeding "in lieu of demurrer" under O. 25 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1957.

The premises are situated on land held under Railway Reserve. In 1935 that land was duly proclaimed by the Acting Secretary to Resident, State of Selangor, to be a reserve for the public purpose of a railway and goods yard to be maintained by the Manager of the Federated Malay States Railways.

There is no dispute that since 1935 by a series of agreements between the appellants and respondents, the details of which are immaterial, the appellants have been tenants of the premises. By 31 March 1975 at the latest such contractual tenancy had come to an end. The appellants nevertheless declined to give up possession (indeed they are still in occupation), and the respondents therefore in April 1975 started these proceedings. In September of that year they filed a summon-in-chambers under O. 14 r. 1 of the Rules of the Supreme Court with the results which have already been described.

Are the premises exempted from the Control of Rent Act?

It is common ground that the appellants are entitled to the protection of the Act by virtue of s. 4(1) thereof unless it can be shown in the words of s. 4(2)(b) that the tenancy was of "premises which are the property of the Government of the Federation or of the Government of any State".

Counsel for the appellants invited their Lordships to decide this matter on a strict interpretation of the pleadings. Paragraph 1 of the statement of claim reads as follows:

1. The plaintiff is a corporate body established under the Railway Ordinance, 1948 and is the registered owner of the premises... held under Railway Reserve Lot No. 13 ...

That allegation was admitted by para. 1 of the defence and counterclaim. Therefore, goes the argument, whatever may be the truth of the matter, the parties have chosen to fight the case on the basis that the Malayan Railway Administration is the registered owner of the premises; that body is plainly neither the Government of the Federation nor the Government of any State; therefore the premises are not exempted from the Act and the appellants/ defendants are entitled to stay in possession under the protection of the Act.

At first sight that appears to be a sound proposition. However, it overlooks a very important provision, namely s. 4(1A) of the Railway Ordinance, 1948. That provide (inter alia) as follows:

The written laws for the time being in force in the Federation or in any part thereof shall, except where otherwise expressly provided, apply to the Railway Administration in the same manner as they apply to the Government of the Federation....

It follows from that provision that s. 4(2)(b) of the Control of Rent Act, 1966, being one of the written laws for the time being in force, applies to the Railway Administration in the same manner as it applies to the Government of the Federation. That is to say, if the premises are the property of the Railway Administration they are exempted