Esso Malaysia Sdn Bhd, the plaintiffs herein, apply by way of originating summons for an order that they do recover possession of the lands held under Grant No 7485 Lot No 231 and Grant No 7486 Lot No 233 both in Section 13 Kota Bharu, Kelantan or otherwise known as Section 13 Lorong Minyak Gas Kota Bharu, Kelantan ('the said lands') on the ground that the plaintiffs are entitled to possession of the said lands as the person or persons in occupation thereof are occupying without licence or consent of the plaintiffs. It is to be noted that the application is for recovery of the lands only and does not include the plant as is made out to be in the English translated version of the originating summons.

The said application is made pursuant to O 89 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 ('the RHC') which provides for summary proceedings for recovering possession of land in circumstances set out therein. The originating summons is supported by the affidavits of Encik Mohd Shah bin Haji Hamzah, the plant and terminal manager of the plaintiffs. An affidavit sworn by the second defendant on behalf of all the defendants, strongly resisting the plaintiffs' said application, has also been filed.

The background facts as can be gathered from the affidavits and the various agreements exhibited are that since the early 1980s the parties had established good business relationship, and as a result they had entered into several agreements, namely:

(a) the kerosene wholesalership agreement dated 15 July 1981 (MS–3);

(b) the sale/purchase agreement of petroleum products dated 1 May 1983 (NS–4);

(c) the Essogas dealer agreement dated 30 January 1984 (MS–5);

(d) the haulage agreement dated 2 November 1985 (MS–9); and

(e) The Kota Bharu bulk plant contract operation agreement dated 1 December 1986 — 'the KBBP Agreement' (MS–10).

The parties seemed to continue enjoying a good relationship until the later part of 1988 when apparently their business relationship turned sour which resulted in the termination of the aforesaid agreements by the plaintiffs pursuant to the powers reserved to them in the various agreements with the exception of the KBBP Agreement which termination is claimed to have been mutually agreed on. The various notices served on the defendants by the plaintiffs are:

(a) for the kerosene wholesalership agreement, the notice of termination of which was dated 10 February 1989 (MS–6);

(b) for the sale/purchase agreement of petroleum products, the notice of termination of which was dated 31 January 1989;

(c) for the Essogas dealer agreement, the notice of termination of which was dated 31 January 1989;

(d) for the haulage agreement, the notice of termination of which was dated 22 September 1988;

(e) for the KBBP Agreement, the notice of acceptance by the defendants to the mutual termination of the agreement of which was dated 2 October 1988 (MS–12).

Be that as it may, the defendants dispute the legal effect of the various notices and more particularly, in regard to the acceptance of mutual termination of the KBBP Agreement in which the defendants allege that the reason behind the termination was purely and simply for the purpose of facilitating a fresh agreement to be entered into between the parties. The defendants further contend that had it not been for the plaintiffs' promises and representations, the defendants would not have agreed to the mutual termination of the said agreement. It is therefore in respect of and pursuant to the termination of the KBBP Agreement that the substratum of the present action is formed.

Whilst it is not disputed that the said lands are registered in the name of the plaintiffs, the defendants however disagree that the KBBP Agreement only confers upon them a licence merely as a personal privilege creating no interest in the plaintiffs' said lands. The defendants maintain that the KBBP Agreement is indeed a tenancy agreement and/or creates a tenancy at law for a consideration. The said agreement