Salleh Abas FJ:

The respondents sued the appellant in Magistrate's Court Johore Bahru for delivery of possession of their land held under agricultural lease No. 271 Lot 2593 situated at Senai Village together with a house erected thereon. The house belongs to the appellant, who was the ground tenant of the respondents. The suit was based on a notice to quit requiring the appellant to deliver up possession of the premises by 31 May 1975, and the notice was served on him on 11 June 1975. The appellant resisted the suit on the ground that the notice was bad in law and therefore had no effect and alternatively he was a tenant who had a tenancy coupled with an equity. The learned Magistrate who heard the case gave judgment in favour of the appellant and on appeal to the High Court Mr. Justice Anuar reversed the ruling of the learned Magistrate. He held that the notice to quit was a perfectly good notice. He also rejected the Magistrate's finding that the appellant had a tenancy coupled with an equity.

The facts of the case are as follows: The land in question was originally owned by a Malay named Tengku Ngah Syed Mahthar bin Mohammed @ Syed Mahathar bin Mohd. Shahab. It was sold to the respondents on 20 July 1969. The total area of the land was about 6½ acres. On this land there was an old house which was constructed, according to the appellant, long before 1948. The house was built by one Hong Kong who was a ground tenant of the previous owners of the land at a ground rent of RM1 per month. In 1951 Hong Kong sold the house to the appellant's father and on the latter's death the appellant became the owner of the house. In respect of this house, the ground rent of RM1 per month was continuously paid by the previous house owners as well as the appellant to the land owner. When the respondents purchased the land in 1969 the ground rent was raised to RM2.50 per month. Sometime in April 1975, without the respondents' consent the appellant demolished the house and built on the same site a completely new house. When the second respondent saw this he lodged a police report and referred the matter to his solicitors. Subsequently the solicitors wrote a letter to the appellant requiring him to demolish the new house which was then under construction within seven days of the receipt of the letter. As a result of this letter a meeting between the appellant and the respondents was held in order to settle their differences, which arose from the demolition of the old house and rebuilding of a new one without the respondent's consent. At the meeting the respondents asked for a tea money of RM4,000 which was eventually reduced to RM1,500 whilst the appellant insisted on a written agreement spelling out his tenancy. Thus the meeting ended with an agreement that a tea money of RM1,500 was payable to the respondents and that a written agreement relating to the appellant's tenancy was to be signed. The next day the appellant paid the second respondent RM500 as part payment of the agreed tea money. A week later the second respondent gave the appellant a written agreement (P7) for signature. The agreement was prepared by a petition writer. From the evidence it appears that the agreement was drawn up on the instruction of the second respondent. As the agreement was in English the appellant consulted his solicitors and when he found that the agreement did not tally with the terms agreed to with the respondents at the meeting he refused to sign it. Following this refusal the second respondent instructed his solicitors to serve a notice to quit on the appellant requiring him to deliver up the premises at the latest by 31 July 1975. The appellant refused to comply with the notice and hence a civil action was taken against him.

There are only two issues in this appeal. The first is whether the notice to quit dated 10 June 1975 (D7) was bad in law and therefore it had no effect to terminate the appellant's tenancy. The second question upon which the lea