When there is no prima facie case injunction cannot be granted.

1. Defendant in O.S.No.7746 of 1998 on the file of II Assistant City Civil Court, Madras is the revision petitioner herein.

2. Defendant is St. Isables Hospital and it entered into an arrangement with plaintiff whereby plaintiff was permitted to collect parking fee from the two-wheelers coming to the hospital for which he has to pay Rs. 1,000 per month on the first day of every month. According to plaintiff, the said arrangement is a lease and defendant is not entitled to dispossess plaintiff except in accordance with law. It is said that after the arrangement the monthly payment was enhanced to Rs. 1,500 from 1994 onwards and the same arrangement continues till date. According to him, he employed four persons to look after parking arrangements inside the hospital premises.

3. Reason for filing the suit was that an alleged demand was made by defendant enhancing the amount from Rs. 12,000 per annum to Rs.1.00 lakh per annum, which the plaintiff did not oblige and consequently, defendant threatened to dispossess him. Suit was therefore laid for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendant and their men from interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of parking lot in St. Isables Hospital premises at No. 18 Oliver Road, Mylapore, Madras, except in accordance with law, and for consequential reliefs.

.4. Scheduled property is described thus.

.Parking lot in St. Isables Hospital at premises No. 18, Oliver Road, Mylapore, Madras 600 004 situated within the Registration Sub district of Mylapore and Registration District of Madras south."

5. Along with the suit, plaintiff also moved an application for injunction as I.A.No.18475 of 1998. Relief sought for in the suit and injunction application are same. Trial Court granted ad interim injunction initially. But after count affidavit was filed by defendant, the same was vacated.

.6. In the counter affidavit of petitioner it is said that the arrangement between plaintiff and defendant is only that of licence and no lease is created. The right is only to collect parking fee from the two wheelers and there is no interest in immovable property is created. It is bare privilege. The allegation that there is a demand for enhancement of fee is also denied. It is said that there had been several complaints against plaintiff and one of the main complaint was that he is exlracting huge amounts from the visitors than permitted, and he is extorting money from innocent visitors. When no interest is created in the property, there cannot be any question of injunction.

7. As I said earlier, after counter affidavit was filed, trial court heard the injunction application in detail and as per order dated 2. 1999 vacated the interim order. Trial Court held that the arrangement between plaintiff and petitioner is only that of licensor and licensee and consequently no right or interest in immovable property.

8. The matter was taken in appeal by plaintiff in C.M.A.No.32 of 1999 on the file of IV Additional City Civil Court, Madras. Lower appellate court after extracting the contentions held that the question whether lease or licence can be decided only in the suit and till then status-quo will have to be maintained and granted injunction. It is also directed lower court to dispose of the suit within a time frame. The said order is challenged in this revision petition by defendant.

9. Since caveat was entered by respondent, I heard the revision at the admission stage itself.

10. Before going into the rival contentions, it is better to extract the arrangement between the parties, which read thus,

" This agreement entered into at Madras this the 3rd day of June, 93 (3rd June, 1993) between the Administrator of St. Isabel Hospital, 18, Oliver Road, Madras -4, hereinafter called the party of the First Part and by Mr. M.U.Murugan having its branch office at No.27, Kanda Street, Shenoy Nagar, Madras-30, hereafter called the Second Party of the Second