The main legal point established is that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises Act apply to the eviction of unauthorized occupants from public premises, and the summary eviction procedure under the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act does not apply to all public places.

A resume of facts necessary and germane for the disposal of this application would run thus:

(i) The plaintiff filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:

"a) to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and consequently grant a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its men, agent or servant from in any manner disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff;

b) to declare that the notice dated nil, signed on 8. 2009 and affixed on the suit premises on 28. 2009 by the defendant under Section 222 of the M.C.M.C.Act IV of 1919, is null and void."

(ii) The same plaintiff filed this application seeking the following prayer:

"to grant an ad interim injunction restraining the respondent/defendant its men, agent or servant from in any manner disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property by the applicant/plaintiff pending disposal of the above suit."

(iii) The respondent Corporation filed the counter affidavit, refuting and remonstrating, impugning and challenging the averments/allegations in the application.

2. Heard both sides.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiff, by inviting the attention of this Court to the averments in the affidavit, accompanying the application as well as the plaint, would develop his argument to the effect that the plaintiff and his ancestors/forefathers have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for more than 100 years; holus-bolus, the Municipality affixed one notice, calling upon the plaintiff to vacate the premises described in the schedule of the plaint as though the premises absolutely belongs to the Municipality and the applicant/plainitff is nothing but an encroacher. Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with such an order, this suit has been filed.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant also, by placing reliance on the typed set of papers, would submit that earlier there were suits filed by the plaintiffs predecessor in title and they got decrees also and the Court also mandated that the Corporation was not expected to dispossess them otherwise in accordance with law. However, quite contrary to the mandates as well as the law, the Municipality is resorting to evict the plaintiff illegally, warranting interference by this Court.

5. By way of torpedoing and pulverising the arguements as put forth on the side of the plaintiff, the learned Standing counsel for the Municipality would put forth and set forth the following arguments;

.(i) a cumulative reading of Sections 220, 221 and 222 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919, would amply make the point clear that the Corporation has got the power to summarily evict or dispossess any encroacher if the person squats on the premises of the Corporation, despite notice having been served on him;

.(ii) in this case, the notice was properly served by affixture and despite that the plaintiff continued to occupy the premises, whereupon it necessitated the Corporation to resort to evict the plaintiff, over which the plaintiff could have no cause of action.

6. At this juncture, I call up and recollect the Division Bench Judgement of this Court reported in 2006(4) CTC 483 CONSUMER ACTION GROUP, vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, certain excerpts from it would run thus:-

"32. . .

(xiv) The Corporation is directed to forthwith take steps to remove the encroachments on all busy streets like Ranganathan Street, Natesa Stree, Madley Road, etc.and the Commissioner of Police is directed to provide adequate police force at the disposal of the Corporation for the purpose of carrying out work of removal of encroachments.

(xv) No Civil Court shall entertain any suit or proceedings or application in respect of the action taken by the CMDA or Corporation in respect of the illegal construction and encroachments on roads and pavements. All pending and future petitions filed/to be filed against CMDA and the C