Person cannot be termed as trespasser.

1. This civil revision petition has been preferred against the fair and decretal order made in C.M.A.No.175 of 1995 by the IV Additional City Civil Judge, Madras, on 2. 1996, dismissing the said civil miscellaneous appeal and vacating the interim injunction granted in I.A. No.788 of 1995 in O.S.No.551 of 1995 on the file of the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, dated 26. 1995.

.2. The suit O.S.No.551 of 1995 was filed by the petitioner for permanent injunction restraining the defendants etc., from evicting him unlawfully or interfering with his peaceful possession of the suit property i.e., Ground and premises bearing door No.74,"G" Block, Anna Nagar East, Madras -102. According to the plaintiff, the suit property was allotted to one R.P. Samuel, by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Mr. Samuel constructed the residential house for which construction plaintiff lent Rs.65,000. Mr. Samuel permitted the plaintiff to occupy the suit property. Hence, the plaintiff is occupying the suit property and paying property tax to the corporation on behalf of Mr. Samuel. The voters list and the ration card show the suit property at the residence of the plaintiff. While so, one Thiruvengadam, a neighbour started to give trouble. Hence, the plaintiff filed a suit O.S.No.2833 of 1992 before the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil court, Madras, for injunction in I.A. No.8828 of 1992. He has obtained interim injunction against the said Thiruvengadam from interfering with his possession. When he learnt about the Tamil Nadu Housing Board preparing to issue sale deed to some third party, he sent a notice to the chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Nandanam, on 20.11.1993 requesting him not to issue the sale deed to any one except to the said Samuel.

3. At the instructions of the second defendant, the first defendant gave a police complaint against the plaintiff. The Inspector of Police K-6 T.P. Chatram Police Station, on 1. 1995, directed the plaintiff to sign a statement in Tamil. But the plaintiff did not do so. Hence on 1. 1995, the plaintiff sent a representation to the commissioner of Police. On 11. 1995 the first defendant with four men entered the house of the plaintiff an threatened to vacate him. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit.

.4. With the same allegations, he filed I.A. No.788 of 1995 for interim injunction. In the counter by the first respondent for himself and on behalf of the second respondent as power of attorney agent, it is stated that Samuel is the father of the respondent. The plaintiff did not advance Rs.65,000. After the death of the father Samuel, the second defendant and her husband were looking after the house and maintaining it for about two years. The plaintiff, who was residing at Thiruvalluvar Nagar (R.V.Nagar) East Anna Nagar, Madras-102, was carrying on his mechanic business near the suit premises and he was known to the second defendant and his husband closely. When the second defendant and her husband left the suit premises, they requested the plaintiff to have a look on the suit property, as the second defendant husband was affected with the kidney problem and he had to take treatment in the C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore. In the year 1992, he received a telegram from the plaintiff in connection with the payment of property tax to the corporation. As the second defendant continued to be with her husband in C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore, she gave power of attorney to the first defendant. When the first defendant visited the property, he found the plaintiff trespassed into the suit property. Hence, a Police complaint was given for removing the trespass. The plaintiff has no right in the suit property. The threat of the first defendant to the plaintiff with four persons was denied. The plaintiff is only a trespasser. Even assuming that without admitting that he was in possession, his possession is in the nature of a licencsee hence, he is not entitled for injunction.

5. A reply was filed to the said counte