The petitioner is challenging the Order dated 210. 2007 made in I.A.No.741 of 2004 in O.S.No.243 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore.

2. The defendants in O.S.No.243 of 2004, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore are the revision petitioners before this Court.

3. The facts which are necessary for the purpose of disposing of the above Civil Revision petition are as follows:

The respondent herein as plaintiff filed O.S.No.1041 of 2000 for the following reliefs:

a) directing the defendants to deliver vacant possession of suit A schedule property in the same good condition in which the same was leased out and also directing the defendant to deliver possession of B schedule property;

b) directing the defendants to pay plaintiff a sum of Rs.5,60,000/-towards damages for use and occupation of A schedule property;

c) directing the defendants to pay plaintiff Rs.20,000/-p.m. towards damages for use and occupation of the B schedule property from the date of suit till delivery of possession.

4. The plaintiff is a Partnership firm and according to the plaint averments, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the properties described in Schedule A and B. A lease arrangement was entered into under a registered lease deed dated 112. 1980 between the plaintiff and the first defendant which is also a Partnership firm. The rent originally fixed was Rs.9000/-for a period of five years and subsequently the lease period was extended till 1994. The lease period is now over and the monthly rent which was last paid was Rs.28,000/-. The defendants failed to deliver vacant possession of the leasehold property, which is the property described in Schedule A and therefore, the plaintiff issued a notice dated 23.09.1998. The said notice was received by the defendants on 26.09.1998. Subsequently, the defendants paid a sum of Rs.56,000/-towards the rent for the months of September and October 1998 which was received by the plaintiff without prejudice to their own contentions. Thereafter, no amount was paid by the defendants and the balance payable by the defendants from 011. 1998 to 1.07.2000 works out to Rs.5,60,000/-. The said sum was claimed by way of damages for use and occupation in view of the termination of tenancy. It is contended by the plaintiff that the possession of A schedule property by the defendants after the notice to quit is wrongful.

5. It is the further contention of the plaintiff that the property described in Schedule B is adjacent to the property described in Schedule A and the defendants unlawfully and stealthily encroached into B schedule property after the plaintiffs terminated the lease in respect of A schedule property. On coming to know of the encroachment, the plaintiff issued a notice dated 10.04.2000 calling upon the defendants to pay damages for use and occupation amounting to Rs.4,76,000/- in respect of the property described in schedule A and also calling upon the defendants to comply with the demands already made in the notice dated 23.09.1998 and also to deliver vacant possession of the B schedule property. A further sum of Rs.20,000/-per month was demanded in respect of the B schedule property by way of damages for use and occupation. The defendants issued a reply dated 09.05.2000, wherein they admitted the fact that they received the notice dated 23.09.1998. Thus, the notice to quit has been served on the defendants on 24.09.1998 itself. The defendants set up an oral agreement to purchase the suit property and falsely claimed that they have already paid an advance of Rs.5,00,000/-. In respect of B schedule property, the defendants set up a false plea that the said property was also taken on lease in 1984. With the above averments, the plaintiff filed O.S.No.1041 of 2000 for the aforesaid reliefs.

6. The said suit was originally filed before the Sub Judge, Coimbatore and later transferred to the Principal District Court, Coimbatore which was re-numbered as O.S.