No interference required unless the discretion exercised by trial court was perverse or arbitrary.

M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J.

Although C.M.P. Nos. 19061 and 19062 of 1997 were posted for orders, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, and having regard to the nature of the appeals, the appeals and cross-objections were heard for final hearing itself. Since these appeals and cross-objections arise out of a common order passed in the applications filed in a single suit, these could be disposed of by rendering a common judgment.

2. The appellant in O.S.A. Nos. 378 and 379 of 1997 is the defendant. The cross-objector is the plaintiff in the suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this judgment will be referred to as they were arrayed in the suit.

.3. The relevant facts required for the disposal of these appeals and cross-objections could be stated as follows :-

.The plaintiff M/s. New Kashmir Stores is a concern carrying on its business at a shop situate in Hotel Chola Sheraton. The defendant is the owner of the said Hotel. In the year 1982 the defendant rented out a portion in the ground floor of the said hotel to the plaintiff being a shop with a floor space of 177.23 sq. ft. for the purpose of exhibiting and selling Carpets, Furs, Kashmir handicrafts, leather goods, etc.

4. The plaintiff has agreed to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 7,000/-. It has been occupying the place for about 15 years. It is a registered holder of TNGST Certificate. The customers of the shop of the plaintiff are not only persons who are staying in the hotel of the defendant but also persons who are interested and who visit the shop for purchase of articles displayed for sale.

.5. On 9-1-1988 the defendant sent a Lawyers notice addressing the plaintiff as a tenant and calling upon to pay the rental arrears and other charges within three days from the date of receipt of the notice. Thereafter, the defendant filed distress application before the Court of Small Causes at Madras, requesting a warrant of attachment of the movables found in the shop occupied by the plaintiff as a tenant. During the course of the proceedings, the arrears have been paid.

6. On 19-5-1990, the defendant issued a notice to the plaintiff describing him as a licensee and asking him to deliver vacant possession of the shop on or before 1-7-1990 by purporting to cancel the said licence. Therefore, the plaintiff filed a suit in C.S. No. 546 of 1990 before the Original Side of this Court for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with its possession and enjoyment of the shop.

7. During the pendency of the said suit, the interim injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant filed an application in I.A. No. 6164 of 1996 to dismiss the suit on the ground that the plaintiff was not a registered partnership firm and as such, the suit was not maintainable. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed.

8. The plaintiff preferred a special leave petition before the Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 16322 of 1996 challenging the order dismissing the suit. However, the said S.L.P. was dismissed as withdrawn on 12-9-1997 with an observation that there is no impediment for the competent plaintiff to file a suit on the same cause of action.

9. Prior to the above order, that is, during the pendency of the S.L.P. before the Supreme Court, the defendant requested the plaintiff by the letter dated 11-2-1997 to keep away from the suit premises for a period of two weeks, since the defendant proposed to do renovation work in the lobby of the hotel ceiling directly on top of the plaintiffs shop. Accordingly, on 13-2-1997 the plaintiff sent a reply stating that in spite of the disputes between themselves pending before the Supreme Court, the plaintiff would, in mutual interests, agree to the request of the defendant subject to its assurance that the civil work would be completed in two weeks so that the plaintiff could resume its business thereafter.

.10. In pursuance of the agreed terms, the plaintiff closed the shop and stopped its busines