Gunn Chit Tuan J:

This action by the plaintiff was commenced by a writ of summons dated 11 September 1971. In the statement of claim dated 24 September 1971 he claimed against the defendant for -

(1) A declaration that the plaintiff is a tenant of the defendant entitled to protection of his tenancy under the provision of the Control of Rent Act 1966, in respect of such parts of the premises No. 43 Penang Street, Penang as are rented to the plaintiff by the defendant, i.e.

(a) the whole of the ground floor of premises No. 43 Penang Street, Penang.

(b) a room on the first floor of the said premises including the right to common use of the hall and other conveniences on the first floor by the plaintiff, the members of his family and his customers of the eating shop.

(2) Damages for breach of terms of oral agreements made in or about the early part of May 1970 and written agreement dated 31 July (sic) and made between the plaintiff of the one part and defendant of the other.

(3) Compensation for loss and damage suffered by the plaintiff by the defendant's illegal acts of obtaining warrant of distress dated 8 March 1971 and wrongfully acting thereon to the detriment of the plaintiff.

(4) An order that the defendant do refund to the plaintiff all sums of monies received by the defendant in excess of the rent which may lawfully be recovered by the defendant under the provisions of Control of Rent Act, 1966, in respect of said portion of the premises rented to the plaintiff by the defendant.

(5) An injunction: -

(a) to restrain the defendant from interfering with the use and quiet enjoyment of the plaintiff of his aforesaid monthly tenancy.

(b) to restrain the defendant from doing or suffering to be done in or upon the premises No. 43 Penang Street, Penang or such parts thereof that are comprised in plaintiff's aforesaid monthly tenancy any act or thin,

which shall or may become a nuisance, damage, annoyance or inconvenience to the plaintiff, his members of family and his eating shop customers.

(6) Return of the plaintiff's account books issued to the defendant for perusal.

(7) Such further or other relief as this Honourable Court may deem just and expedient.

(8) Costs.

The trial of the action finally began before me on 24 March 1977. It could not be completed within the various periods allocated for the hearing and had to be continued from time to time until 3 May 1978. On that day Counsel informed me that by consent the claims in the above-mentioned paras. 1(b), (2), (3), (4) and (5) were withdrawn as well as the following, claims in the amended defence and counterclaim:

(b)Arrears of rent of the business for $140 being balance due for July 1971.

(c)Mesne profits at the rate of $300 per month from August 1971 till delivery of possession of the said business.

(d) Damages for breach of agreement.

(e)An injunction restraining the plaintiff from carrying on the eating shop business or any other business on the ground floor of premises No. 43 Penang Street, Penang.

(f) An order requiring the plaintiff to take down the said sign containing the words "SRI KALIAMMAN VILAS, 43 PENANG STREET, PRO K KANDASAMY".

The parties had come to an amicable-settlement on those claims and it was agreed that a sum of $8,500 was due to the defendant from the plaintiff being mesne profits up to 31 May 1978 and that there should by consent be judgment accordingly without prejudice to the plaintiff's right to claim from the defendant's superior landlord arrears of assessment amounting to $5,020.63 paid by him in respect of 43, Penang Street for the year 1972 up to and including the first half of 1978. The only issues which therefore remained for the Court's decision were whether there was a tenancy or a licence granted in this case and whether there should be an order for the return of the plaintiff's books of accounts.

In so far as the two remaining issues were concerned, the plaintiff's evidence was that he was carrying on the b