Mahadev Shankar JCA:

[1] This is an application for a stay of execution which we granted. The respondents have appealed to the Federal Court.

[2] The applicants are long standing occupants of the land comprising in HS (D) 34221 PT No 30186 Mukim Ampang, Daerah Ulu Langat (the said Land). The applicants had erected thereon permanent structures in which they live. Some of them also cultivated the said Laid. Throughout they were permitted to occupy the Land by the state authority without objection. On account of their long standing presence on the Land, they claim they have the right to occupy the Land as licensees coupled with equity. The state authority did not take any direct to terminate the applicants' occupation of the said Land.

[3] The Land was then alienated by the Selangor Authority to the respondent's company (Lebbey) for a substantial premium. Lebbey claims that it had borrowed a substantial sum of money from its bankers in order to finance the development of this Land. It is submitted that the interest charges payable on the loan taken escalate from day to day and that any delay in the development will have adverse financial effects of a magnitude which the applicants cannot compensate.

[4] At all material times Lebbey was aware of the presence of the applicants on the Land. After the Land was alienated, Lebbey claimed to have terminated the applicants' right to occupy the said Land and initiated proceedings in the High Court in Shah Alam to evict the applicants. The applicants challenge Lebbey's right to evict them.

[5] On 7 April 1995 Lebbey's application under O 89 of the Rules of the High 1980 were heard and it obtained orders for the summary eviction of the applicants.

[6] The applicants then applied for a stay of execution in the Court below. They were refused and therefore came to us.

[7] It is to be noted that the orders in the Court below were not made after full trial but on a summary application by Lebbey on affidavit evidence. The grounds of judgment of the trial Judge are not before us and it would be premature for us to say that this appeal is without any prospect of success.

[9] The subject-matter of this appeal from the applicants' point of view is their continued right to say in their homes until their claims have been finally disposed of in a full trial. The destruction of that right cannot be adequately compensated with money. This is a special reason why a stay should be granted. Lebbey's Counsel requested that the Court only grant a conditional stay and require applicants to deposit RM1,000,000 if a stay is to be granted. We did not think that such a request was realistic.

[10] We therefore granted a stay but directed that the appeal record be filed within seven days from the date of our order. We also directed that there should be an early hearing of the appeal, and the costs of this application abide the result of the appeal.