IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on:11.07.2025 Pronounced on:23.07.2025 Coram:

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN A.S.No.661 of 2024 and C.M.P.Nos.21024 & 21026 of 2024 R.Shanmuga Vadivel, S/o Rathinappa Flat No.B5, SFI Apartments, No.16, Karnan Street, Rangarajapuram, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. .. Plaintiff/Appellant /versus/

1.P.V.K.Rajamahendran, S/o Late P.V.K.Swamy, No.5 West Club Road, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai 600 030.

2.R.Sridevi, D/o Late M.R.Ramarao, No.8, Valliammal Gardens, Rangarajapuram 2^nd Street, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 0244. ..Defendants/Respondents Appeal Suit has been filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside the judgment and decreetal order dated 18.04.2024 made in O.S.No.1150 of 2018 on the file of the XVIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

For Appellant :Mr.V.Regunathan For Respondents :No appearance for R1 Mr.N.Malaisaravanan for R2 JUDGMENT Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.1150 of 2018 by the XVIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, on 18.04.2024.

2.This suit is filed by one Shanmugam Vedivel against P.V.K.Rajamahendran and R.Sridevi, seeking protection of his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by way of a restrain order from interference, except by due process of law.

3. According to the plaintiff, he entered into an agreement that one P.V.K.Swamy for tenancy on 14.06.2012 for a period of 11 months and he was put in possession of the property after receiving of Rs.1,60,000/- as advance and monthly rent at the rate of Rs.16,000/-. He is in possession of the property by paying the electricity bill, telephone bill and having gas connection, Aadhar card, Voter ID to show his possession. After the demise of P.V.K.Swamy, claiming right over the property, the first defendant is trying to dispossess him illegal along with the second defendant. In this connection, a police complaint was lodged on

25.01.2018 for attempt of unlawful eviction.

4. Apprehending forcible dispossession suit was filed for permanent injunction not to evict him from the suit premises except due process of law. The first defendant filed one paragraph written statement which reads as below:

The defendant submits that this defendant had perused the contents of the plaint filed by the plaintiff that no allegations against this defendant and all the allegations against the second defendant herein.

5. No specific denial of the plaint averments by the first defendant nor he conceded to the averment.

6. The second defendant had filed a detailed counter narrating suppression of facts and collusion between the plaintiff and the first defendant. The rental agreement relied by the plaintiff denied as false contenting that there is no jural relationship as landlord and the tenant between the plaintiff and the second defendant. The 2^nd defendant purchased the suit property from one P.V.K.Saravanan through a valid sale deed dated 23.06.2011. If any rental agreement was entered between the plaintiff and the first defendant on 14.06.2012, which is subsequent to her purchase, it is non est in the eye of law. She has further contended that the said tenancy agreement is false, bogus and fabrication in collusion with the first defendant with an intention to grab the suit property and submitted that earlier, a similar allegation was made by one Velusamy and the suit filed based on fabricated rental receipts. The said suit was later dismissed. The police complaint about illegal trespass into her property was not taken up for investigation in view of this suit filed for permanent injunction restraining her from evicting the plaintiff from due process of law.

7. Based on the plaint and written statements, the trial Court framed the following Issues:-

(i)Whether the plaintiff is the third party as an unauthorized occupant in the suit property?

(ii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? (iii)To what other reli