Person coming to court with unclean land not entitled for any relief.

1. Defendant in O.S.No. 5345 of 1997, on the file of the VII Assistant. City Civil Court, Madras, is the revision petition. The plaintiff claiming himself to be a tenant under the defendant filed this suit for injunction, to restrain her from entering into the building. It is the case of the respondent that the defendant let out the building to him, by virtue of an affidavit dated 17. 97, on his agreeing to pay the the monthly rent of Rs. 1,500. It is also his case that he has paid a sum of Rs. 40,000 as advance to the petitioner. It is further averred in the plaint, that on 37. 97 at about 10.00 a.m. the defendant came to the suit premises, and wanted the plaintiff to vacate the premises, on the ground, that the plaintiff happened to be a brother of an Advocate. She also offered to return the sum of Rs. 40,000 which has been paid as advance. The plaintiff did not agree for the same, which created a misunderstanding between the parties. It is his further case that on 8. 1997, the defendant with her family members shouted at him and attempted to enter in to the suit premises, and the same was resisted by the family members of the plaintiff. It is said that the plaintiff, however, managed to prevent them from entering into the building. Thereafter, the defendant made a open challenge stating that they are capable of removing the plaintiff without the intervention of the Court, though the plaintiffs brother is an Advocate. A police complaint was made by the plaintiff, which was not fruitful. The suit was, therefore, filed to restrain the defendant, on the basis of the apprehension that she may enter into the property at any times.

2. The suit was filed on 8. 1997, and on the same date, an interim injunction was granted as follows:-

"Heard,. Perused the records. There is prima facie case. Ad interim injunction till 18. 97 under Order 39, Rule 3 to be complied with."

The present revision is filed against that order.

.3. At the time when the revision was being heard, this order was not in force, and it is admitted by both the counsel that the interim order was already vacated. The respondent also filed an appeal before the Appellate Court, which was also without any success. As it is, there is no injunction. Under ordinary circumstances, I would have dismissed the civil revision petition as infructuous. But certain telling facts compel me to say that the dismissal of the injunction petition itself may not be sufficient to meet the

.ends of Justice, especially when certain facts are brought to my notice. While exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court is entitled to take into consideration the grievance of the party, and if it is found to be true, it is also duty bound to see that the grievance is redressed to the maximum possible extent. It is here, the C.M.P.Mo. 11268 of 1997, gains its importance, where the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to hand over possession of the suit premises to her.

4. The alleged rental arrangement is dated 17. 97, which is in the form of an affidavit, sworn by the respondent in Rs. 10 stamp paper. An affidavit is taken as a rental arrangement, and he has filed the suit on that basis, and obtained an order of interim injunction. The case of the petitioner is that under the guise of the said ex pane order of interim injunction, the first floor portion of the premises was forcibly occupied by him along with other persons. The very appearance of the rent arrangement itself creates some suspicion. There is a finding by the trial Court as well as by the appellate Court, that the document is a created and forged document. Various other circumstances have also been taken by the courts below to come to the conclusion that the case as pleaded by the respondent is false, and that was the reason why Courts below refused to exercise their discretion in his favour.

5. What is the effect of that order will be the main consideration, when we consi