JUDGMENT

Anuar JC:

This is an application by the respondents, Asian Holdings (Industrialised Buildings) Sdn. Bhd. by way of Notice of Motion for an Order that:-

(1) The Warrant of Distress issued herein on 30 January 1977 and/or the execution thereof may be discharged and this suit may be dismissed on the

grounds set out in the affidavits filed herein in support of this application.

Alternatively :

(2) The applicants by their servants or agents including the Court Bailiff and all persons holding through or under them may be restrained and an injunction may be granted restraining them from proceeding with the execution of the Warrant of Distress issued herein on 30 January 1977 by way of sale by public auction or otherwise.

In the further alternative : -

(3) The Warrant of Distress issued herein on 30 January 1977 and/or the execution thereof may be suspended pending the final determination of the issues set out in the affidavits filed herein in support of this application.

In any event

(4) This Distress Suit and all proceedings herein may be stayed pending the final disposal of Johore Bahru High Court Civil SuitNo. 729 of 1977 between the respondents herein as the plaintiffs and the applicants herein as the defendants.

(5) Such further or other reliefs or directions as to this Honourable Court may seem just.

(6) Costs of and incidental to this suit and including the costs of this application may be taxed as between party and party on the higher scale and paid by the applicants to the respondents.

It is necessary for me to relate the events which led to the present motion. Singma Sawmill Co. Sdn. Bhd. are the applicants in Distress Suit No. 1/77 and 6/77. They applied for and obtained Warrants of Distress to be issued against the respondents Asian Holdings (Industrialised Buildings) Sdn. Bhd. for arrears of rent. As a result the Bailiff of the High Court Johor Bahru executed the said Warrants of Distress on 8 February 1977 and 22 June 1977 respectively.

An objection was filed by Malayan Cooperative Agencies Society Ltd. claiming ownership of the properties seized. The objectors asked for the properties to be released.

Interpleader summons by the Sheriff was then issued on 28 February 1977. The matter was disposed of by the Judge on 29 August 1977.* The objection was dismissed. However the objectors appealed against the decision and the matter is now pending in the Federal Court.

The respondents then took out a notice of motion on 26 November 1977 to move the Court for an order as prayed above.

The grounds for the application by the respondents are contained in the affidavits of Michel C Soelle dated 27 November 1977 and 12 January 1978.

The applicants' affidavit in reply is affirmed by Yap Chuan Seng @ Yap Seng Hock, a director of the applicants' company dated 27 December 1977.

There are several grounds on which the respondents relied. But to my mind the issues can be narrowed down to two grounds. One is that because the use of the land is illegal therefore the contract of tenancy is void or voidable. Secondly that the machines are fixtures and therefore cannot be distrained. Other grounds I think are without merits.

It is not disputed that the land upon which the respondents are tenants is an agricultural land. There is a condition imposed on the use of the land. The condition is that the land is to be planted with rubber and pineapples only. The use of the land for other purposes would, to my mind, be a breach of the said conditions. A breach of conditions arises under s. 125 of the National Land Code as soon, and continues so long, as the condition is not complied with and the land would be liable to a forfeiture under s. 127 of the same Code.

The applicants have let the land together with a factory building on it to the respondents solely for the purposes of operating a factory. For this purpose, the respondents have erected machinery on the land. It is clear that the land is being let out in breach of th