JUDGMENT

Wan Yahya J:

This is an appeal against the decision of the Senior Assistant Registrar on an application under , wherein he gave judgment for the Respondent.

The Respondent's claim against the Appellant was for the sum of $42,830.45, interest and costs. The claim was based on a letter dated 24th September, 1982 (Exhibit 'A' in Enclosure (8)) in which the Appellant agreed that in consideration of the Respondent withdrawing from the joint venture agreement in respect of Lot 454, Mukim of Padang Temu, Melaka, the Appellant would compensate the Respondent the sum of $90,000.00 being the expenditure incurred in the process of sub-division and building plans which had been approved by the local authorities. Pursuant to the said agreement the Appellant had paid the sum of $47,210.65, leaving a balance of $42,830.45 for which sum the Respondent filed the claim and the Senior Assistant Registrar allowed it on summary judgment.

In his Statement of Defence (Enclosure (6)) the Appellant contended that he agreed to compensate the Respondent in the sum of $85,000.00 only and not $90,000.00. The Appellant alleged further that it was verbally agreed between him and the Respondent that the balance sum of $37,789.35 shall be payable by him upon the sale of houses which have been built by the Appellant. Since the houses have not been sold, the Appellant contended that the Respondent's claim was premature. The Appellant maintained that there was an oral agreement which is a triable issue.

Counsel for the Respondent cited the case of Central London Property Trust Ltd v. High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130. In that case the plaintiffs had leased a block of flats to the defendants in 1937 at a ground rent of 2,500 a year. In January 1940 the plaintiffs agreed to reduce the rent to 1,250 a year because of wartime conditions as a result of which only a few of the flats were let. By the beginning of 1945 all the flats were let out again but the defendants were still paying the reduced rent. The plaintiffs claimed the full rent and tested the claim by suing for rent at the original rent for the last two quarters of 1945. On this they were held to be entitled to succeed, as the agreement of 1940 had (on the true construcltion) ceased to operate early in 1945. Denning J. was however of the opinion that the plaintiffs could not have recovered the full rent for the period which was covered by the agreement of 1940.

In the instant case I am of the view that the appeal lies solely on the true construction of the contents of Exhibit A in Enclosure 8.

The law in respect of construction of documents in O 14 applications have been set out very clearly by Raja Azlan Shah J. (as he then was) in ; [1972] 1 MLJ 168 at 171 C the Appellant have not raised a valid and/or triable issue and as such I accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs.

COUNSELS:

Mr. Andrew Goh for the Applicant,

T/N Andrew T.S. Goh & Co.,

Peguambela & Peguamcara,

MUI Finance Building,

80 & 82 (1st Floor),

Jalan Bendahara,

75100 Malacca.

En. Zainal for Defendant,

T/n. Zainal & Partners,

Peguambela & Peguamcara,

No. 20A, Tingkat 1, Bangunan UDA,

Bandar Baru Ampangan,

70400 Seremban.

IN THE HIGH Court AT MALACCA

CIVIL APPEAL FROM THE MAGISTRATE Court AT MALACCA

NO. 11 - 2/1987

BETWEEN

TAY GUAN SOON é APPELLANT

AND

GANESHA SDN BHD é RESPONDENT

This is an Appeal by a tenant against the decision of Learned Magistrate ordering him to quit and deliver up vacant possession of a portion of the land known as Holding No.45 Village of Tanjong Kling, Section II, and premises No.C 8592, Tanjong Kling, Melaka and arrears of rental in the sum of $1,000.00 and costs.

I am informed that the outcome of this Appeal would affect a number of cases and the parties have agreed that this would be the test case and as such the decision of this Appeal would also be binding on the other cases.

The Respondent became the registered owner of the land in question measuring about 22 acres 1 rood 0 pole, now subdivided into 200 sub-divided bu