ORDER :

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the decree and judgment dated 28.09.2006 passed in O.S.No.11909 of 1996 by the XV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

The civil revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.11909 of 1996 on the file of the XV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. She filed the above suit to pass a decree and judgment directing the defendant to put the plaintiff in possession of the shop bearing No.12-A, or the portion where the shop bearing No.12-A was located in the shopping arcade at Taj Coromandel Hotel at No.17, Nungambakkam High Road, Madras-34.

2. The case of the plaintiff in nut shell is as follows.

The defendant is the owner of Taj Coromandel and with a view to provide shopping facilities to their residents, customers, tourists and visitors in the hotel, let out various shop portions in the hotel to outside people. The plaintiff was allotted and put in possession of Shop No.12-A at Taj Coromandel Hotel at No.17, Nungambakkam High Road, Madras to carry on her business in selling jewellery and other handicrafts items in the name and style of Santhosh Jewellery. The plaintiff also executed an agreement dated 01.11.1984 through her husband, who was her power agent. The plaintiff was paying a sum of Rs.1,275/- per month besides other charges in all amounting to Rs.2,801.60. The plaintiff has also deposited a sum of Rs.40,950/-. The defendant used to give receipts for the payments made by the plaintiff. However, at one stage, the defendant refused to receive the amount tendered by the plaintiff, which forced the plaintiff to open a separate bank account to deposit the monthly amounts payable by her. Thereafter, the defendant increased the amounts payable by the plaintiff. Though the plaintiff has been paying all the amounts due to the defendant without fail, the defendant exerted pressures on her to vacate and deliver vacant possession of Shop No.12-A. Subsequent to the agreement dated 01.11.1984, no fresh agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant. On 10.06.1991, the plaintiff received a letter from the defendant alleging that they proposed to renovate their hotel extensively for a period of three years and that the shop should be vacated by the plaintiff. They also informed that the plaintiff should not sell her goods in the shop from 16.07.1991 onwards and further directed to remove all the goods. Therefore, the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.649 of 1991 before this court for declaring that she is a lawful tenant at shop No.12A of shopping arcade in the hotel premises and also for a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property except under due process of law. In the said suit, an order of interim injunction was granted in O.A.No.549 of 1991 in favour of the plaintiff, against which the defendant preferred an appeal in OSA No.233 of 1992 before this court. The said appeal was allowed in favour of the defendant setting aside the order of interim injunction granted in O.A.No.549 of 1991. Merely because the order of injunction was vacated, the defendant would not be entitled to vacate the plaintiff unlawfully. The defendant sent a telegram on 31.03.1994 alleging that they already sent a communication on 30.03.1994 informing that they were going to exercise their right of re-entry and would start removing the articles by the security staff. After the receipt of the telegram dated 31.03.1994, the plaintiff sent a reply telegram denying the receipt of any communication as alleged in the telegram. She further stated in the reply telegram that she was going to move the Supreme Court against the orders passed in OSA No.233 of 1992. However, the plaintiff received a communication dated 05.04.1994 from the defendant stating that the plaintiff's goods and articles were removed on 31.03.1994 by them after tak