Gill CJ:

[1] This is an appeal by the defendant in the action from an order of Abdul Hamid J granting leave to the respondent as plaintiff to enter final judgment on his claim against the defendant for the recovery of vacant possession of factory premises situate on land held under QT(R) 1107 for Lot No PJ 2143/62 in the township of Petaling Jaya (hereinafter referred to as "the premises".)

[2] The facts of the case are that the defendant was formerly the registered owner of the premises, and of another piece of land with a dwelling house thereon in the township of Kuala Lumpur. Under an agreement dated June 1, 1970 he obtained a loan of $130,000 from one Chooi Mun Sou. As collateral security for repayment of the loan, he deposited with the lender his documents of title to the premises and the other piece of land, together with two blank transfer form duly executed by him.

[3] The loan was to be repaid together with interest thereon at 10% per annum within 3 months, failing which the agreement empowered the lender to sell the said lands or any one of them either by public auction or by private contract so as to realise an amount sufficient to repay the loan together with interest, and for this purpose to make use of the transfers executed by the borrower as aforesaid.

[4] The defendant having failed to repay the said loan as agreed, Chooi Mun Sou on or about March 31, 1972, in the exercise of his right under the agreement, transferred the premises to Equitable Nominees Sendiran Berhad for a consideration of $100,000. On or about June 9, 1972 Equitable Nominees sold and transferred the premises for $120,000 to the plaintiff who paid 10% of the purchase price and charged the premises to Equitable Nominees to secure payment of the balance of the purchase price. The other piece of land was similarly transferred to Equitable Nominees for a consideration of $45,000, and Equitable Nominees sold it to one Sushila Menon for $55,000. This other piece of land, however, does not form part of the subject matter of the action with which we are now concerned.

[5] The plaintiff became the registered owner of the premises on June 26, 1972. Thereafter he demanded of the defendant orally and by written notice dated August 7, 1972 to quit and deliver vacant possession of the premises. The defendant having failed to comply with the demand, the plaintiff bought this action for recovery of possession by a specially indorsed writ dated August 25, 1972 when the defendant was alleged to be in wrongful possession.

[6] On September 27, 1972 the plaintiff made an application by way of summons-in-Chambers for summary judgment under O 14 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1957. The application was supported by his affidavit verifying his course of action and stating that he verily believed that there was no defence to the action except as to the amount of mesne profits and damages.

[7] The defendant opposed the plaintiff's application and asked for unconditional leave to defend the action by filing an affidavit to which were exhibited his statement of defence and counterclaim. He then filed an additional affidavit to which were exhibited the loan agreement, the transfer documents from himself to Equitable Nominees and from Equitable Nominees to the plaintiff, and the charge from the plaintiff to Equitable Nominees. The gist of his main affidavit is that the plaintiff procured himself to be registered as proprietor of the premises in a manner which made it liable to be set aside, or that he held the premises subject to the defendant's right of redemption as set out in his defence and counterclaim.

[8] The substance of the defendant's statement of defence is as follows. First, as Chooi Mun Sou was charging interest without being licensed under the Moneylenders Ordinance, the loan agreement under which the purported transfers were effected was illegal and unenforceable under the provisions of the Ordinance. Secondly, Chooi Mun Sou and his wife were the sole sh