S.S. Sundar, J.

S.A.(MD) No. 440 of 2014 -The plaintiff in the unnumbered suit in C.F.R.No.650 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thanjavur, is the appellant in the Second Appeal in S.A.(MD)No.440 of 2014.

2. The appellant in this Second Appeal presented a plaint in C.F.R.No.650 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thanjavur praying for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property otherwise than due process of law and upon the fourth defendant repaying a sum of Rs. 60,000/- to the plaintiff. The suit property is a shop building measuring 285 square feet wherein the plaintiff is carrying on business under the name "Rose Medicals".

3. The case of the appellant in the plaint are as follows:

3.1. The plaintiff is a tenant in respect of the suit property and he is running a medical shop. The plaintiff is running the shop along with his brother and the business carrying on the suit property is a partnership business as per the partnership deed dated 21.09.1991.

3.2. The plaintiff was legally inducted as a tenant by the fourth defendant under a rent deed dated 28.08.1991. The monthly rent was Rs. 330/- originally and the plaintiff paid an advance of Rs. 10,000/- to the fourth defendant. The plaintiff has obtained licence from the Assistant Director for Drugs and that he has been paying rent to the fourth defendant. The lease was subsequently renewed on 17.12.2002 and the rent was enhanced to Rs. 600/- per month. Thereafter, the rent was enhanced to Rs. 1,300/- and subsequently to Rs. 2,000/- and the plaintiff is paying the rent regularly without any default and the rent paid to the fourth defendant is acknowledged in a diary note book. The plaintiff is a statutory tenant and that he can be evicted only by due process of law as his possession is legal and protected. The plaintiff also had made improvements by spending about Rs. 2,00,000/- and that the fourth defendant had agreed to adjust this amount in monthly installments or at the time of vacating the property. A further sum of Rs. 50,000/- was also paid as advance. The plaintiff came to know about the suit property being given as security by the fourth defendant in connection with the loan advanced to one R.M. Lakshmi by the first defendant for which the fourth defendant stood as a guarantor.

3.3. The plaintiff admitted the fact that the suit property was brought to auction on 25.11.2011 pursuant to the recovery certificate obtained by the first defendant in O.A. No. 139 of 2007 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal - II, Chenni. However, it was contended by the plaintiff that his possession is legal and prior to the proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. It was the further case of the plaintiff that he is a third party to the proceedings and that his suit is maintainable as per the Rules 42, 43 and 45 of the Income Tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules 1962.

3.4. Sum and substance, it was the plaintiff's case that as a tenant, who was inducted by the fourth defendant pursuant to the rent agreement dated 28.08.1991, he is entitled to protect his possession. It was further contended that the auction purchaser can only take symbolic possession. Since the second defendant has passed an order on 09.01.2012, directing the plaintiff to vacate the suit property and to hand over the key on or before 31.01.2012, the plaintiff stated that he has come forward with this suit.

4. As pointed out earlier, the first defendant is the Union Bank of India who has filed an application in O.A.No.139 of 2007 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai and obtained a recovery certificate against the principal borrower and the guarantor, the fourth defendant in the suit. The second defendant is the Recovery Officer who has passed the order directing the plaintiff to hand over possession. The third defendant is the auction purchaser.

5. The trial Court rejected the plaint by o