Plaintiff cannot rely on case put forward by the defendant.

1. First defendant in O.S.No.5628 of 1998, on the file of IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, is the revision petitioner. The revision has been filed under Art.227 of the Constitution of India.

2. First respondent herein filed the simple suit O.S.No.5628 of 1998, for injunction to restrain the defendants in the suit who are two in number, from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. In the plaint, it was stated that she purchased the property on 5.2.1966 and that she is enjoying the same. It is also stated therein that she is staying at her native place at Thanjavur. Property Tax, water tax and Government dues in respect of the property are paid by representative of plaintiff in the name of plaintiff, and that she had been in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It is also alleged in the plaint that the defendants are rank trespassers, and, taking advantage of the absence of plaintiff, defendants are trying to grab the suit property and in that process, defendants, on 18.8.1998 attempted to dispossess the representative of plaintiff and her from the suit property with a view to take control of the same. But, because of the timely intervention of the representative of plaintiff, the evil design of defendants did not materialise. Subsequently, defendants and their henchmen are trying to dispossess the plaintiff and her staff from the suit property by resorting to illegal means. Cause of action is stated to have arisen at Chennai on 5.2.1966 when plaintiff purchased the suit property and on 18.8.1998 when the defendants were attempting to enter into the suit property and subsequently when the defendants were attempting to enter into the suit property.

3. Along with the plaint dated 28.8.1998, plaintiff filed I.A.No.13342 of 1998 for injunction.

4. An ad interim injunction was obtained by plaintiff, which reads thus:

“Heard. Perused documents. As per document No.1, registered sale deed dated 5.2.1966, petitioner had purchased the suit property. Document Nos.2 and 3, viz., Property Tax receipt dated 18.9.1997 and receipt for C.M.W.S.S.B. dated 19.9.1997 stand in the name of petitioner, Prima facie case made out. Interim injunction till 10.9.1998 and notice by then.”

5. Revision petitioner, on 10.9.1998, has filed a counter alleging that there is a fraud committed by plaintiff, and the business that has been conducted by him has now been taken possession forcible under the guise of implementing the interim order. It is his case that he is running a business by name New Sangam Lodge, and he had been a tenant of this building for the last more than 25 years. He has also said that he has taken on lease the property owned by plaintiff, and he has paid her huge amount by way of advance at the inception of tenancy. According to him, plaintiff has also executed a lease deed in his favour. There were prior court proceedings between them, and he has also installed four telephones in his lodge. He is regularly paying the monthly rent by demand draft through registered post acknowledgment due. According to him, the last of such payment was made in the first week of August, 1998 and the same was received by plaintiff on 10.8.1998. He has also said that all the records of the business, his jewellery, furniture, etc. are now in the business place, and on 4.9.1998, he was forcibly dispossessed and he filed a police complaint which has been registered as 1702/DC(Cr.) Com/98 at T.Nagar Police Station. It is also stated that he sent a telegram to the Commissioner of Police on the very same day. It is said that on the basis of the interim Order, He has been thrown out of the business, and all his valuables, including gold, cash, records, are now with plaintiff, There are 27 rooms in his lodge and all of them ate well furnished. The wooden cots, tables, chairs, linen, foam mattresses alone will be over Rs.10 lakhs in value. He prayed for the early vacating of the interim o