misuse of premises

something tickled my funny bone when i read it today.

in the case of ho kean kong lai soo [1974] 2 mlj 63, the federal court found that a boy who exposed his privates to his landlord's daughter was not guilty of misusing the premises for "immoral purposes".

the relevant quote from raja azlan shah fj's judgment:

Therefore if I rent a room to live in it, I may be said to use the room. But if I exposed my private parts at another person who happened to be in my room, or to put the case nearer home, if I exposed my private parts at another person in an adjoining room, it is a misuse of language to say that I am using, the room for the purpose of exposing my private parts. Similarly if I steal an article belonging to a neighbour, it will the height of absurdity to say that I use my room for the purpose of committing the offence. In other words, there must be some link between the guilty act and the premises which are the subject matter of the proceedings for possession. The phrase “use. . for illegal or immoral purposes” necessarily implies a deliberate use, a designed choice of the thing used for the purpose in hand. The premises must, in my opinion, have been used as a “spring board” or “launching ground” to commit the offence.

LOL