JUDGMENT

T. Selventhiranathan JC:

The plaintiff filed this originating summons against the four defendants claiming vacant possession forthwith of two specific lots of land on which are erected four units of pre-war double-storey terrace houses ("the property in question" or "the property" collectively, or "the land" or "the premises", as the context may require), bearing addresses 1, 3, 5 and 7 Carnarvon Lane, Penang, as well as damages and costs.

The facts are largely not in dispute. The plaintiff purchased the property in question by way of a courtordered public auction on 6 January 1992 for RM141,000. Upon payment of the balance of the purchase price, he became the registered proprietor thereof on 25 May 1992. Among the conditions of sale was a stipulation that the property was "... sold subject to all assets, liabilities and rights (if any) .subsisting thereon ...".

On 28 July 1992 the plaintiff, through his solicitors, issued separate notices to quit to all four defendants as occupiers of the property and demanded that they deliver up vacant possession by 31 August 1992. Failure to do so would be visited by the taking of "the necessary action to evict you and claim for damages". The defendants failed to vacate the property and the plaintiff filed this application by way of originating summons on 28 September 1992.

The defendants in their various affidavits deny the plaintiff's right to evict them and contend that they had all been monthly tenants of the previous owner for lengthy periods of time, that the houses on the property are controlled premises and they are therefore entitled to the protection of the Control of Rent Act 1966 ("the Act") . The first defendant contends in addition that by an agreement entered into on 26 June 1989 with the previous tenant, the latter lawfully assigned all her right, title and interest in 1 Carnarvon Lane to him for a consideration of RM20,000. The assignment was purportedly done with the consent of the then landlord, one Ng Kee Seow. (However, nothing turns on this as Mr. Chong Woon Khoon for the first defendant did not advance any argument in respect of the purported assignment). All four defendants exhibit receipts of rents paid to the previous owner of the property over varying periods of time. The receipts acknowledge monthly payments of rents.

The plaintiff's application was heard on 14 June 1993 after three adjournments at the behest of the parties to file affidavits in reply, the main reason therefor being late service of affidavits necessitating in turn adjournments to file the affidavits in reply.

At the hearing, Mr. Thangaraj for the plaintiff contended that the defendants' occupation of the premises had been lawfully terminated by the notices to quit as well as by the service on the defendants of the summons herein. This sufficed under the law for the plaintiff to be given vacant possession as claimed. The two register documents of title to the property did not reveal any endorsement of claim pertaining to the alleged tenancies under s 316 (1) of the National Land Code 1965 ("the Code") and therefore the plaintiff at the time of purchasing the property had had no notice of any subsisting rights in respect of the property. He cited in support of his contention the cases of Hotel Ambassador (m) Sdn. Bhd. v. Seapower (m) Sdn. Bhd [1990] 1 MLRH 508, [1991] 1 MLJ 221, and Public Bank Bhd v. Wan Leong Hup Kee Co, [1992] 3 CLJ (rep) 294

Mr Chong Woon Khoon, for the first and second defendants, submitted that although the facts were not in dispute, there were two important factors, however, for consideration, namely, that the houses erected on the two lots of land were of pre-war vintage, and that the plaintiff had purchased the property in question "... subject to all easements, liabilities and rights (if any) subsisting thereon ...".

But before proceeding to the merits of the case, Mr. Chong raised a preliminary objection that the pleadings of the plaintiff were defective in that the