Judgment :- The revision petitioner/petitioner/plaintiff has filed these two revisions as against the orders dated 10.09.2008 in C.M.A.Nos.24 and 25 of 2008 passed by the learned V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in dismissing the appeals filed by the revision petitioner/ plaintiff. 2.The learned V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, while passing orders in C.M.A.Nos.24 and 25 of 2008, has inter alia opined that but our case in hand is entirely different with the facts of the case as the appellant seeks/reliefs only mainly against the first and second respondents to issue trade licence and against the third respondent claiming right over the agreement entered into between the third respondent and by the appellants as tenant and lease partnership etc. and even though, which are to be decided finally in the respective suits after trial as far as the relief against the first and second respondents is concerned as the business involves public interest regarding safety, sanitary and health etc. it would be impossible to run eating house or hotel without the trade licence appropriately obtained and against public policy and in those circumstances, the ruling relied on by the appellant cannot be taken into consideration as applicable for this case in hand and that there would be no prejudice would be caused to the third respondent as well as the first and second respondent than the petitioner if the interim reliefs are granted now and hence, these civil miscellaneous appeals are liable to be dismissed on merits and the trial Court orders in I.A.Nos.13943 and 16481 of 2007 are to be confirmed and accordingly confirmed. 3. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner urges before this Court that the trial Court has miserably failed to see that there was landlord and tenant relationship between the third respondent and partners of the petitioner for the reason that out of total amount of Rs.20,000/- being paid to the third respondent, Rs.9,000/- alone was fixed as fee for using the licence for running the hotel and the balance amount was adjusted towards the rent of the building which is unwritten as there was oral agreement in respect to the tenancy and further that the above written and unwritten arrangement between the partners of the petitioner hotel and the third respondent has been reflected in the petitioners bank account in A/c.No.1521 maintained in Canara Bank, Saidapet at that a sum of Rs.9,000/- alone was reflected as the petitioner issuing cheque for only Rs.9,000/- towards licence fee for running the hotel and the balance amount paid in cash towards rent for the building and these aspects have not been looked into by the trial Court in a proper perspective and Income Tax return for Assessment Years 20032004, 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 filed by the third respondent show that there was a rental income of Rs.1,44,000/- in the suit properties and that the 30 exhibits on the side of revision petitioner to substantiate their case have not been considered by the trial Court and therefore, prays for allowing the revision petitions in the interest of justice. .4. .4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner further contends that though the agreement to manage hotel business dated 01.04.2000 has been entered into between the third respondent and the revision petitioner though it is styled as agreement, it is only a lease and that the revision petitioner is only a tenant and that the third respondent is only a landlord and that there are 32 persons have been engaged by the revision petitioner in hotel business and some of them are temporary and some of them are permanent and 60 dependents are there and if the hotel business is not allowed to run then it will cause inconvenience and hardship to the revision petitioner and that the learned V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai as in his order dated 10.09.2008 in C.M.A.Nos.24 and 25 of 2008 have categorically stated that the issues involved between the parties are to be decided finally in the respective suits and therefore, a direction may be given by this Court to the trial Court to dispose of the suit O.S.No.5257 of 2007 on the file of XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, within a time framed fixed by this Court. 5. 5. The learned counsel for the third respondent/Caveator contends that the civil revision petitions filed by the revision petitioner are not maintainable per se in view of Order 42 Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code and that the orders passed in C.M.A.Nos.24 and 25 are appealable orders and that the returns submitted before the Income Tax Authority by the third respondent will not any way help the petitioners case and at no point of time he has received even a single rupee as rent from the petitioner and that he is the owner of the property and that he has engaged the services of T.Damodara Rao and P.V.Ramadoss to run the management of hotel business that he has been carrying on earlier in the suit property under the name and style of Hotel Rich Treat and since he has entrusted the management to somebody else due to ill health and preoccupation of personal work, he has engaged the services of T.Damodara Rao and P.V.Ramadoss to manage the hotel of his behalf and that he executed a General Power of Attorney in their favour for carrying on the hotel business in the licences issued by the Corporation of Chennai as well as the Police Authorities and later he entered into an agreement entrusting his hotel management by means of agreement dated 08.03.1990 and the said hotel business has been run in his name with valid licence issued in his favour in his own premises, with the same being managed by the aforesaid two persons and that in respect of the first floor of the premises the hotel business with the meals, snacks, ice cream Parlour, which he has been carrying on, has been managed by P.V.Ramadoss name as indicated in the agreement dated 4. 2000 etc. and that he never parted with the possession of the premises to either of them at any point of time and the agreement has been periodically renewed and the agreement did not indicate any schedule of property and he entrusted the management to T.Damodara Rao and P.V.Ramadoss from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2005 and thereafter, from 01.04.2005 they have no manner of right to manage the hotel business and on the expiry of the agreement, he has informed that in his own premises their services are no longer required and that the business management agreement has been renewed beyond 31.01.2005 etc. 6. 6. The contention of the third respondent is that the agreement to manage the hotel business is only an agreement and not a lease and that the said two individuals filed a suit O.S.No.3409 of 2005 for a permanent injunction, restraining the third respondent from interfering with their alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of the premises where the hotel business has been carried on and that in I.A.No.10791 of 2005 an injunction has been obtained and later on the said I.A.No.10791 of 2005 has been dismissed and as against the said order earlier C.M.A.No.120 of 2005 has been filed by the T.Damodara Rao and P.V.Ramadoss has been dismissed by the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and again the aforesaid individuals filed O.S.No.7884 of 2005 praying for a declaration that the notice dated 15.09.2005 wherein the third respondent has cancelled the Power of Attorney executed by him in favour of P.V.Ramadoss has been null and void and for permanent injunction etc. and later the interim injunction application has been dismissed and once again T.Damodara Rao filed another suit O.S.No.3214 of 2006 praying for a declaration to declare the agreement dated 04.04.2006 entered into with him is a lease agreement and not a business management agreement and sought for a resultant permanent injunction relief and the interim injunction application has been dismissed on merits and later an appeal has been filed with a petition to condone the delay which has also been dismissed and that the third respondent is not interested in continuing the business and the police as well as the Corporation authorities accepted his request and did not renew the licence when the same has been expired on 31.03.2006 and in fact the police licence has been cancelled even on 15.09.2005 and that the Corporation licence was locked in the computer by the Corporation authorities earlier, and they continued to carry on the business illegally without licence from 01.04.2005 etc. .7. .7. It appears that P.V.Ramadoss, claming to be a partner of M/s.Hotel Udupi Woodlands has filed a writ petition in W.P.No.23368 of 2006 praying for an issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order passed by the authorities of the Corporation of Chennai dated 11.07.2006 refusing to issue licence in their favour and an interim order has been obtained and though the third respondent has been impleaded as third respondent, he has not received the notice but came to know that the said writ petition has been dismissed at the admission stage itself on 24.07.2006 and the Court has permitted the petitioner to represent the application for issue of licence within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and has directed the first respondent therein to pass an order within a period of two weeks. Again another writ petition W.P.No.33532 of 2006 has been filed by P.V.Ramadoss praying for an order to quash the order passed by the Corporation authorities dated 38. 2006 and to issue a licence for running the hotel business in his premises without insisting on a No Objection Certificate. In the writ petition, the Honble High Court on 19. 2006 has directed P.V.Ramadoss to submit a representation to the ARO, Zone 9, Corporation of Chennai within a period of two weeks and on receipt of the same, the latter was directed to consider and pass orders etc. However, the hotel workers filed W.P.No.4628 of 2006 against the authorities of the Corporation of Chennai and that the writ petition was also dismissed directing the workers to make representation to the concerned authorities. 8. It is to be noted that the revision petitioner has filed O.S.No.5257 of 2007 praying for a relief of declaration that the rejection by the second defendant of the application dated 19.04.2007 is illegal and against the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 and for the mandatory injunction directing the defendants 1 and 2 to issue a licence for the eating house of the plaintiff. On 010. 2007 the authorities of Corporation of Chennai have sealed the hotel in the presence of Police officials, Saidapet J1 Police Station. In W.P.No.16026 of 2007 an interim order has been extended by three weeks. It appears that O.S.No.5257 of 2007 has not been filed within three weeks on 27. On 010. 2007 the authorities of Corporation of Chennai have sealed the hotel in the presence of Police officials, Saidapet J1 Police Station. In W.P.No.16026 of 2007 an interim order has been extended by three weeks. It appears that O.S.No.5257 of 2007 has not been filed within three weeks on 27. 2007 but has been filed on 28. 2007. An I.A.No.13943 of 2007 for injunction has been filed restraining the respondents 1 and 2 from taking any coercive steps to close the petitioners hotel. It appears that the XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A.No.13943 of 2007 and in I.A.No.16841 of 2007 have passed a common order inter alia stating that the revision petitioner has completely failed to satisfy that the suit property was taken on lease from the third respondent to run the hotel business in the suit property and the petitioner has failed to establish prima facie case in their favour and that the balance of convenience is also not with the petitioner and there is no doubt that the schedule mentioned property was not leased out to the petitioner and when Ex.P.14 and P.15 permit the petitioner only to manage the hotel business it can only be construed as licence and in that view of the matter has dismissed both the applications. .9. Between the parties there are several litigations right from City Civil Court to Honourable High Court from filing of the suit till filing of the writ petitions. As on date the revision petitioner has filed a suit O.S.No.5257 of 2007 on the file of XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai praying for a relief of declaration declaring that the rejection of application by the second defendant bearing No.Ma.Tu.U.P.R7/2564/06 dated 19.04.2007 is illegal and against the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and also seeking a relief of mandatory injunction directing the respondents 1 and 2 to issue licence for eating house to the plaintiff Industry to run the business in the name of Hotel Udipi Woodland in the schedule property. 10. 10. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the third respondent submits that the two persons T.Damodara Rao and P.V. Ramadoss have filed earlier five suits and in all of them they have failed and this is the 6th suit filed by the revision petitioner herein and the revision petitioner is a rank trespasser and only if there is a valid licence the case of the revision petitioner can be accepted by this Court and since there has been no licence for the revision petitioner from 2005, they cannot run the hotel business without licence. Moreover, the learned counsel for the third respondent submits that the present suit filed by the revision petitioner viz., O.S.No.5257 of 2007 is hit by the principles of res judicata under Section 11 of Civil Procedure Code. 11. One cannot brush aside an important fact that the revision petitioner has filed earlier suit O.S.No.3409 of 2005 for permanent injunction and C.M.A.No.120 of 2005 on the file of III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and later another suit O.S.No.7884 of 2005 has been filed and another suit O.S.No.3214 of 2006 has been filed and in all the aforesaid suits the petitioner has appears to have lost the case. The present suit O.S.No.5257 of 2007 on the file of XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai has been filed by the revision petitioner as per order passed by the Honble High Court in W.P.No.16026 of 2007 in M.P.No.1 of 2007. 12. The learned counsel for the third respondent informs this Court that the main suit O.S.No.5257 of 2007 has been posted in the special list for hearing in the first week of December. .13. It cannot be said that to re-appreciate the material whether the trial Court is right or the appellate Court is right, the Honble High Court can exercise its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in the considered opinion of this Court and therefore, the civil revision petitions filed by the revision petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are perfectly legal and maintainable, though the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has to be exercised by this Court sparingly. Moreover, the agreement in issue between the parties whether it is a Lease or Licence is a matter of construction and nomenclature is not a decisive factor and the substance of document alone one has to see and come to the conclusion as to the exact of tenor of the document. Furthermore, in law, the lease creates a right in property but licence is a grant of right short of easement and interest in the property. 14. Be that as it may, on a careful consideration of respective contentions and taking note of the fact that in earlier litigations the revision petitioner has not succeeded and in view of the fact that the Honble High Court has permitted the revision petitioner to file a civil suit for further remedy and resultantly the revision petitioner having filed the present suit O.S.No.5257 of 2007 on the file of XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and since the issues involved between the parties are a mixed question of fact and law which will have to be determined based on oral and documentary evidence to be adduced by both parties and further bearing in mind another fact that the main suit is now ready for conduct of the trial and the same being posted in the list during the first week of December, this Court opines that it is desirable for the parties to thrash out all the factual and legal contentions in the suit in a comprehensive and complete manner and in that view of the matter, this Court directs the trial Court to dispose of the suit within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and these civil revision petitions are disposed off, leaving the issues left open. 15. In the result, these Civil Revision Petitions are disposed off directing the trial Court viz., XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai to dispose of the original suit O.S.No.5257 of 2007 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and to report compliance to this Court without fail. The trial Court is also directed to provide opportunities to both parties to let in oral and documentary evidence in the manner known to law. Since the agreement is said to have expired on 33. The trial Court is also directed to provide opportunities to both parties to let in oral and documentary evidence in the manner known to law. Since the agreement is said to have expired on 33. 2005, the parties are directed to cooperate with the trial Court in regard to the conduct of the main case so as to give a quietus to the controversies involved in the suit. Liberty is given to the revision petitioner to approach the trial Court and to file necessary application in the manner known to law seeking permission to conduct the hotel business till the disposal of the suit within a period of seven days from today and if any such application is filed, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the same dispassionately on merits after giving due opportunity to both parties, uninfluenced with any of the observations made by this Court in this revision. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.