JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.202 of 2007 dated 08.02.2008 on the file of the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai as confirmed in O.S.No.1858 of 2003 dated 22.08.2005 on the file of the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.)

(Heard through video conferencing)

1. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 08.02.2008 passed by the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in A.S.No.202 of 2007.

2. The appellant was the second defendant. The first defendant died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives are not impleaded. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as plaintiff and defendants.

3. The short averments:-

The suit property is shop No.16-B, Lilly Pond shopping complex at New Moore Market, Chennai, belongs to the third defendant/Corporation. Due to some financial crisis, the first defendant had let out the shop to the plaintiff. The plaintiff being the tenant of the first defendant is conducting the shop and paying rent to the Corporation. The second defendant is the power agent of the first defendant through whom the plaintiff was paying the rent. As there was no tenancy agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the first defendant, the defendants were not issuing any receipts for the rent paid by the plaintiff. Taking advantage of the situation, the defendants are causing troubles to the plaintiff to conduct his business at the said shop. Hence, the plaintiff has come forward with the suit for permanent injunction.

3.1 The second defendant has filed a written statement stating that the suit shop and another shop were allotted to one Arinandan Shah; the said Arinandan Shah along with first defendant and second defendant's father was running a partnership business in those two shops; after the fire accident occurred in the Old Moore Market, with the help of funds granted by the World Bank, new shops were built in the New Moore Market Blocks, Alikullam; in the said shops, two shops bearing shop Nos.16-B and 597-B were allotted to Arinandan Shah and the business was running in the same pattern as it was run earlier; though the second defendant’s father was also the partner in the said two shops, both the shops were allotted only in the name of the first defendant; after sometime, the first defendant did not show any interest to run the suit shop and wanted to conduct the business separately in shop No.597-B; so, he gave an application to third defendant/Corporation to effect name transfer in favour of the second defendant in respect of shop No.16-B and the same is pending; the second defendant is not the power agent of the first defendant. They have business transactions between themselves and hence, the plaintiff cannot file this suit considering the second defendant as stranger.

3.2. Though the third defendant appeared through his counsel, no statement seems to have been filed.

4. Basing on the pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues:-

1. Whether it is true to contend that the plaintiff is a tenant under the first defendant in the suit shop?

2. Whether it is true to contend that the plaintiff and second defendant are partners in respect of suit shops?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction?

4. To what else relief is the plaintiff entitled?

5. During the course of the trial, on the side of the plaintiff, one witness was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A15 were marked. On the side of the defendants, two witnesses were examined as D.W.1 & D.W.2 and Exs.B1 to B13 were marked.

6. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge has decreed the suit and granted the relief of permanent injunction. Aggrieved over that, the defendant has preferred the first appeal before the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The First Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of