1. This litigation has a chequered history and therefore the facts require detailed narration. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their name.

2. The dispute in this case is with regard to the possession of a vegetable shop bearing door No.H-88 measuring 4120 sq.ft. in Periyar vegetable market in Chennai.

3. For the sake of brevity, the property will be referred to as shop H-88. It is common knowledge that the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority [CMDA] constructed a huge vegetable market complex in Koyambedu and allotted shops to various persons. Shop H-88 was initially allotted to one Muthazhagu who appears to have divided the shop into nine portions and had sublet the same to some persons including one Gnanasekaran and Senthil Kumar in violation of the allotment order. These persons were selling vegetables in the portions in their occupation since 1998. It is asserted by Senthil Kumar that he was a tenant under Muthazhagu and was paying him Rs.100/- per day as rent.

4. In the year 2003, the CMDA officials sealed the shop H-88 as Muthazhagu has failed to pay the monthly charges to the CMDA. Aggrieved by the sealing of the shop, Senthil Kumar, Gnanasekaran and others made representations in the year 2003 to the CMDA for allotting the shop H-88 to them.

5. While so, the CMDA issued a public notice for the sale of shop H-88 via open auction. Challenging the auction notice, Senthil Kumar and others filed WP.No.10288 of 2003 which was disposed of by this Court on 03.04.2003 upholding the auction notice, but directing the CMDA to consider the representation of Senthil Kumar and others “if it is possible to accede to their request.” P.M. Sebastian participated in the auction and purchased shop H-88 for a total cost of Rs.91,67,000/- and the CMDA confirmed the bid by order dated 08.04.2013. According to P.M. Sebastian, there are nine portions in shop H-88 and eight were in occupation of various persons including the said Gnanasekaran.

6. It is the allegation of P.M. Sebastian that after he purchased shop H-88, Senthil Kumar was not in occupation of any portion and that, he is a very close friend of Gnanasekaran who was using the telephone connection bearing No.044-247956471, that is in the name of Senthil Kumar. On the contrary, it is the assertion of Senthil Kumar that he has been continuously in occupation of one portion of shop H-88, even after P.M. Sebastian had purchased it. Even though, P.M. Sebastian was a successful bidder, the CMDA did not issue him license and registration certificate and also did not execute the sale deed for shop H-88, on the ground that the shop H-88 was earmarked as godown and that P.M. Sebastian is using it as shop for selling vegetables in retail. Therefore, P.M. Sebastian filed WP.No.36689 of 2006 contending that shop H-88 was already divided into nine portions and eight portions were in occupation of various persons when CMDA had auctioned it and therefore, he had not divided the property into portions for the purpose of retail sale of vegetables as alleged by CMDA. In other words, the shop was auctioned in “as is where is condition” by the CMDA for which, P.M. Sebastian cannot be faulted.

7. This Court considered the rival submissions and by order dated 21.03.2007 in WP.No.36689 of 2006 directed the CMDA to issue the necessary license and registration certificate and also to execute the sale deed in favour of P.M. Sebastian. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, CMDA executed the Sale Deed in favour of P.M. Sebastian and thus, he became the lawful owner of shop H-88. Thereafter, P.M. Sebastian filed eight suits namely, OS.Nos.13390 to 13397 of 2009 before the City Civil Court, Chennai, for eviction of eight persons in occupation of the eight portions in shop H-88. In the said eight suits filed by P.M. Sebastian, Gnanasekaran is a defendant in one of the suits as he is in occupation of one portion in shop H-88. It must be necessary to state here that no