JUDGMENT

Hashim Yeop Sani FJ:

The appeal was originally on many grounds against the order of the trial Judge directing the appellants to render vacant possession of premises No. 11, Singapore Street, Seremban and also against the further order that the appellants to pay double rents from 1 August 1979, i.e. the date that the trial Judge held the appellants to be trespassers. At the commencement of the hearing of the appeal however Counsel for appellant, Mr. James Ponniah, abandoned grounds 1-4 inclusive in the memorandum of appeal which had put into issue not only the purported protection conferred on the appellants by the Control of Rent Act 1966 after the expiry of the lease by effluxion of time but also the legality of the Decontrol Certificate issued under s. 23 of the 1966 Act. The remaining grounds of appeal have thus been considerably simplified and the issues accordingly reduced to two questions of law, namely whether the trial Judge was correct in holding that the appellants were trespassers from 1 August 1979 onwards and secondly whether the trial Judge was correct in ordering the payment of double rent from that date.

The bare facts relevant for our present purpose may b