CS.No.843 of 2006 has been filed, seeking a direction against the Defendant to deliver vacant possession of the suit property, bearing Old Door No.7, New Door No.13, First Cross Street, Ramakrishna Nagar, Mandaveli, Chennai-28 and also for a direction against the Defendant to pay a sum of Rs.2,96,000/- towards the claim for damages for unlawful use and occupation and for future damages at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month from the date of the plaint till the date of delivery of vacant possession and for costs of the suit.

2. The Plaintiff had stated that she had purchased the property by a registered sale deed dated 14.2.1973, bearing Document No.8987 of 1973 in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Mylapore and thereafter, obtained sanction plan from the Corporation for construction of a building. She had put up one drawing room cum dining room and two bed rooms with attached bathrooms and a kitchen. The Defendant, namely, the Board of Trustees of Sri Sakthivilas Siddah Brahmapeeth, on its Mission on Sri Sakthivilas Mission for Health and Consciousness, represented by its Founder and Chairman, Dr.E.Srikumar, had requested the Plaintiff to use the property. The Plaintiff gave her consent on 23.11.2000 for use of the property by the Defendant for the purpose of carrying its charitable activities for its Chennai branch. Permission was granted for a period of five years, which may be extended for a further period of five years on a written request by the Defendant. Permission was accepted by the Defendant. The Defendant had not requested in writing for extension of permission subsequent to 22.11.2005. Consequently, the permission granted on 23.11.2000 for five years had expired.

3. It has been stated that the Defendant is a trespasser in the suit premises and that the Defendant without obtaining planning permission from the Corporation of Chennai/ CMDA had put up an additional construction. This additional construction was put up even without the written permission and consent of the Plaintiff. The Defendant was not using it for charitable purposes or in accordance with the object clause of the Trust or in accordance with the consent given on 23.11.2000. It has been stated that the Defendant had violated the terms of permission and therefore, is liable to surrender possession of the suit property to the Plaintiff.

4. It has been stated that the Plaintiff and her husband came to India to settle down in Chennai in the suit property. The Defendant offered two AC rooms in the first floor for their stay. Since the husband of the Plaintiff was a senior citizen aged about 76 years and had also undergone bye pass surgery due to heart ailment, he could not climb to the first floor. Hence, he was allotted one bed room in the ground floor by the Defendant. The Plaintiff intended to settle in the suit property and requested the Defendant to deliver possession of the suit property to the Plaintiff. However, Dr. E. Srikumar, the Founder and Chairman of the Defendant Trust had filed OS.No.7361 of 2006 on the file of the V Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, in his individual capacity, for the relief of permanent injunction, restraining the Plaintiff herein from infringing with his peaceful possession except by due process of law. He had also filed IA.No.16059 of 2006 for grant of interim injunction, which was also granted.

5. It has been stated that the Plaintiff is in occupation of two AC rooms in the first floor and one room in the ground floor. The Defendant herein prevented the Plaintiff from enjoyment of other portions of the suit property. In OS.No.7361 of 2006, it was also stated by the Defendant herein that the Plaintiff had agreed to convey the suit property and he had therefore improved and developed the suit property by spending a sum of Rs.50 lakhs and he had also constructed portions in the suit property. Therefore, the Plaintiff in this suit, has also sought for damages. In these circumstances, the suit had been filed for a dire