The main legal principle established is the summary nature of suits under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, focusing on dispossession and immediate relief, and the distinction between remedies under Section 6 and Order 21 Rule 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Background Facts :

2. The suit in O.S.No.817 of 2009 was instituted by the revision petitioner against the respondent praying for a decree of declaration that he was a lawful tenant in respect of the suit property and for a consequential injunction restraining the respondent, her agents and men from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

3. In the plaint in O.S.No.817 of 2007, the petitioner inter alia contended thus:

(a) The respondent and her husband were known to him since long. He was engaged in Tourist Travel business and the respondent was conducting a beauty parlour at Door No.4/14, T.T.K.Road, Alwarpet, Chennai-8. While so on 13 May, 2001, the respondent borrowed a sum of Rs.15,000/-from him and she was paying interest on time. Subsequently on 1 September, 2001 she borrowed a sum of Rs.1 lakh. The respondent was very prompt in the matter of payment of interest and thereby she gained confidence and trust of the petitioner.

(b) While so, during the month of September, 2001, the respondent along with her father approached the petitioner and requested him to lend a sum of Rs.21 lakhs for their business at Bangalore. The petitioner accordingly arranged a loan through his friends and paid a sum of Rs.21,53,000/-on various dates between 15 September, 2001 and 23 February, 2002. Accordingly a total sum of Rs.25 lakhs was given as loan.

(c) Subsequently in the month of November, 2001, the respondent approached the petitioner and informed him that the premises bearing Door No.4/14, T.T.K.Road, Alwarpet, Chennai was intended for sale by its owner M/s.Crescent Agency. The said property was in the possession of Tmt.Kanaka Durga. Accordingly on 11 November, 2001, the respondent and her employee took the petitioner to the residence of Kanaka Durga, who informed him that the owner was willing to sell the shop for a sum of Rs.10 lakhs. The petitioner agreed for the said proposal and accordingly a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- was given to the respondent in two instalments towards the sale amount. Though the petitioner repeatedly requested the respondent to conclude the sale transaction and register the property in his name the respondent was delaying the matter under some pretext or the other.

(d) The petitioner at last filed a complaint before Teynampet Police Station against the respondent on 12th July, 2002. Since no action was taken as per the said complaint, the petitioner approached the Commissioner of Police, Chennai and based on the said complaint a case in Crime No.734 of 2002 was registered against the respondent as well as her employee. The lessee of the building viz.,Kanaka Durga was also an accused. The said case was charge sheeted by the police after investigation and ultimately the respondent was convicted as per judgment dated 4th September, 2008 in C.C.No.7455 of 2003.

(e) In the meantime on 2 October, 2002 the petitioner was informed that the respondent was in Chennai City. He immediately informed the City Crime Branch and accordingly the respondent was taken to the Crime Branch Office for enquiry. She was accompanied by her lawyer. The police conducted necessary enquiry and at that time the respondent admitted the receipt of a sum of Rs.9 lakhs from the petitioner for the purpose of purchasing the shop at T.T.K.Road, Alwarpet. The respondent also agreed to settle the matter. After pro-longed discussion the respondent agreed to execute a memorandum of agreement with the petitioner. As per the said memorandum, the respondent agreed to re-pay a sum of Rs.9 lakhs received from the petitioner within a period of three years and until such re-payment the petitioner was permitted to keep possession of the suit property. It was further agreed that upon receipt of the sum of Rs.9 lakhs the petitioner would deliver vacant possession to the respondent. The respondent in turn agreed to execute a lease for eleven months in respect of the said shop which would be extended for a total period of