also stolen money from the shop. Based on the complaint preferred by the second Respondent/tenant, the first Respondent had registered CSR No.45 of 2016. There were talks held in the Police Station. The first Petitioner seeking the second Respondent to vacate the property and hand over possession to the first Petitioner. The second Respondent on the other hand refusing the same. While so, with the false complaint to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram, the second Respondent preferred a complaint as though the Petitioners have broke open the lock of the shop and removed the garments meant for sale and stolen the money. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram, had issued a direction to the first Respondent to register a case and investigate it. Based on the direction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram, the first Respondent had laid final report as though the Petitioners had committed such offences, as alleged in the complaint attracting the provisions of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992.
