The civil suit has been filed under Order IV Rule 1 of O.S.Rules r/w Order VII Rule 1 of CPC for recovery of money, cost of the suit and for other reliefs as this Hon'ble may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. The averments found in the plaint, in brief, are as follows:

For the grant of licence (right) to display advertisement over lamp posts in 10 important roads in the city of Chennai for the years 1996 – 1999 auction-cum-tender procedure was followed and the defendant emerged as the successful bidder having offered the highest rate for the grant of the said right. The said offer made by the defendant was accepted and placed before the Council which passed a resolution on 03.10.1996 in Resolution No.2386/96 allotting 2462 lamp poles for displaying advertisement boards for a period of three years. The resolution and the award of contract was communicated to the defendant by a letter dated 09.10.1996 and the defendant was asked to remit Rs.75,13,885/- being the entire licence fee for the first year. In the same letter, the defendant was asked to sign an agreement with the plaintiff Corporation. However, by a letter dated 22.10.1996, the defendant raised a doubt about the actual number of poles available in some of the roads and contended that the actual poles available were only 1757 as against 2462 poles as per the notice calling tender. As such, the defendant tentatively paid Rs.52,21,455/- towards the first year licence fee and agreed to make the payment of the balance money after ascertaining the correct number of poles actually available for allotment. As a result of the same, the plaintiff solicited the assistance of Superintending Engineer (Electrical) to furnish the exact number of poles situated on the roads/streets allotted to the defendants. Based on a verification made by both the Revenue and Electrical Departments of the Corporation in the presence of a representative of the defendant, by a letter dated 24.12.1996, the plaintiff informed the defendant that the actual number of poles situated on the roads allotted to the defendant was 2471 and the licence fee payable by the defendant was worked out to Rs.73, 52, 260/-. As such, payment of balance sum of Rs.21,30,805/- was demanded from the defendant within three days from the receipt of the said letter dated 24.12.1996. Despite the fact that verification of the poles were jointly made by the plaintiff and the defendant's representative, the defendant wanted to give up the poles situated on the V.O.C Salai and by a letter dated 09.01.1997 and also contended that less number of poles were available on the other roads/streets. The defendant claimed that a sum of Rs.56,87,300/- alone was payable for the first year of the said contract. The said claim was rejected by the plaintiff and the plaintiff's demand was reiterated by a letter dated 06.02.1996. Subsequently, by a letter dated 03.03.1997, the plaintiff demanded the defendant to enter into a formal agreement and such an agreement was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant on 14.03.1997.

(iii) In accordance with Clause III of the agreement, one month prior to the end of the first year, namely on or before 02.09.1997, payment of the licence fee of Rs.71,49,460/-for the second year of the contract was to be made. The defendant did not pay the second year's licence fee in spite of several demands made by the plaintiff. The same made the plaintiff to make a demand for payment of the said amount together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum for the unpaid amount as per Clause IV(2) of the agreement. Instead of making payment of the amount demanded by the plaintiff, the defendant chose to send a letter to the plaintiff which was received by the plaintiff on 10.11.1998, wherein the defendant had claimed that no advertisement could be made using 124 lamp poles on Lattice Bridge Road due to political intervention and requested for limiting the contract on the Poonamallee High R