Arun Kumar Mitra, J. - (1.) This appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment and decree dated January 11, 1990 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, 10th Court at Alipur in Title Appeal No. 156 of 1989 affinning the judgment and decree dated January 31, 1989 passed by the learned Munsif, 4th Court at Alipore, District-24 parganas in Title Suit No. 76 of 1985.
(2.) The case as has been made out by the plaintiff in the plaint in brief is inter alia as follows : The defendant No. 1 is the owner of an apartment of Flat No. 3C in Nilkamal at 41, Lala Rajpat Rai Sarani, Calcutta-20. The defendant No. 2 is the Flat Owners' Association of the Building 'Nilkamal'. The plaintiff is a monthly tenant in respect of the Flat No. 3C at 'Nilkamal' building, under the defendant No. 1 at monthly rental of Rs. 1500/-. The plaintiff is liable for payments of electricity and gas charges and the defendant No. 1 is liable for land rents, rates and fans an service charge to defendant No. 2. The conduct of defendant No. 1 have cast clouds on the tenancy right of the plaintiff. The defendant No. 1 along with other is threatening the plaintiff to vacate the suit premises as he is not a tenant. The plaintiff to vacate the suit premises as he is not a tenant. The plaintiff tendered rent for June 1985 through money order and the rent was refused and as such he deposited rent with Rent Controller. In the instant suit the plaintiff prayed for declaration and permanent injunction and made the following prayers : a) A decree for declaration that the plaintiff is a monthly tenant under the defendant No. 1 in respect of the suit premises. aa) (a permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the tenancy right in respect of the suit premises by the plaintiff).
(3.) The defendant No. 1 consented the suit by filing Written Statement denying all the material allegations thereto. The plaintiff was inducted by an agreement as a licensee and not as a tenant. The defendant No. 1 has only one room at 264/3. Upper Chitpur Road, Calcutta, being the ancestral house of the defendant No. 1. The monthly payment of Rs. 1500/- was for meeting rent, corporation taxes and other statutory obligation. The defendant No. 1 had no liability to pay service charges with the defendant No. 2. The defendants deny all other allegations. On consideration of the pleadings of both parties the following Issues were framed : 1. Is the suit maintainable as framed in law ? 2. Was the plaintiff inducted on the basis of an agreement dated 11.4.1979 and was it acted upon ? 3. Is the plaintiff a tenant or licensee in respect of the suit premises ? 4. Is the plaintiff entitled to receive electric and gas bill regularly from defendant No. 2 ? 5. Is the plaintiff entitled to a decree for declaration as prayed for ? 6. Is the plaintiff entitled to a decree for permanent injunction as prayed for ? 7. Is the plaintiff entitled to a decree for mandatory injunction as prayed for ? 8. To what other relief or reliefs, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to ? ;