Hashim Yeop A Sani J:

[1] This is a Notice of Motion for an order that the interlocutory injunction granted on 11 October 1976, be set aside. It would appear from the notice as well as the affidavits supporting the application that the sole ground of the application that the injunction be set aside is that the respondent/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff") had not stated the facts fully and accurately to the court and that he had not disclosed all material facts. The application was made by the defendant in the original writ who for convenience will be referred to as "the defendant" in this application.

[2] The writ concerned was taken out by the plaintiff on 8 October 1976. In the Statement of Claim the plaintiff alleged that he was the tenant of the whole of premises known as Lot No 1288, Jalan Ampang, Ipoh, paying a rental of $150 per month to one Tan Beng Kai, the landlord. However, in July 1976, the defendant entered upon the said land and removed the fruit trees from the said land, erected a foundry on the land and among other things dumped and scattered iron pipes, concrete pipes, etc, on the land thus blocking the front and the back entrances to the plaintiff's premises. In the writ the plaintiff asked for an injunction against the defendant or his servants or agents to forthwith remove the fencing encircling the premises and also to remove all obstacles allegedly created thereon by the defendant and the plaintiff also asked for damages. On the same day that the writ was taken out the plaintiff also asked in a Summons-in-Chambers for an interim injunction supported by an affidavit sworn on the same date. In the affidavit the plaintiff attached a copy of the tenancy agreement between him and the said Tan Beng Kai. He alleged in the affidavit that he had always been paying the monthly rental regularly and that with the knowledge of the landlord he started what would appear to be a small factory producing toothpicks in the said premises. But because of the obstacles created by the defendant or his servants or agents as referred to earlier, he had not been able to continue with his business on the said premises. Apart from the copy of the tenancy agreement attached to the affidavit a copy of another document was also attached (MZ 2) which was a letter addressed to the solicitors of the landlord extending the said tenancy for another year. Also attached to the affidavit are several photographs showing the alleged obstacles on the land surrounding the premises. An interim injunction was granted by the Registrar effective up to and including the 11th day of October, 1976. On 11 October 1976, another application was made on behalf of the plaintiff to extend the interim injunction to be effective until the trial of the civil suit. The grounds of the application were the same. An interlocutory injunction was granted on the same terms On 14 October 1976, the defendant entered appearance and on 18 October 1976, he filed his defence. In the defence it was disclosed that the defendant has since 6 October 1976, become the owner of the premises in question. The transfer of the land was completed on that day although it would appear that some agreement had been reached between the landlord and the defendant about the purchase and sale since as early as 29 July 1976. The defendant in his defence also denies there was any obstruction caused or any obstacles made on the land in question or that the plaintiff has been in any way hindered from entering the premises. The defence also disclosed that in fact the former landlord purporting to exercise his right of re-entry under cl 5(a) of the tenancy agreement had re-entered upon the said land upon the default of payment of rental by the plaintiff and the re-entry was effected on 20 September 1976. The former landlord, ie, the landlord named in the said tenancy agreement also swore an affidavit supporting the Notice of Motion and in his affidavit he said that he had in