An unregistered lease deed is admissible in evidence to prove the admission by parties as to what is the subject matter of the lease and to prove how the defendants came into possession of the properties.

Since caveat was entered, I heard the learned counsel on both sides at the time of admission itself.

2. In both these Second Appeals, defendants are the appellants. Landlord filed a suit for eviction as O.S.No.2367 of 1981 on the file of I Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli. Another suit was filed by landlord as O.S.No.3191 of 1981 on the file of same court for mandatory injunction directing tenant to demolish the unauthorised construction and restore the leased portion to its original position. Before institution of suit, lease was also terminated by registered notice under Sec.106 of Transfer of Properties Act.

3. Reason for terminating tenancy was that the tenant defaulted payment of rent for six months from January, 1979 and when demand was made, defendants put false contention. After termination of tenancy a sum of Rs.3,600 was paid, which was accepted by landlord, without prejudice to his rights to get possession. Plaintiff sought eviction of tenant with damage in use and occupation after the period of tenancy. According to plaintiffs lease was composite lease i.e., building and furniture and therefore civil court got jurisdiction to entertain the same.

4. As against the said contention, appellants contend that the transaction is not composite lease, but only a lease of building and consequently, only Rent Control Court got jurisdiction to decide the matter. It is further submitted that the furniture that are now seen in the premises belong to appellants and not part of the lease.

5. Suit for mandatory injunction was filed on the allegation that defendants have made unauthorised constructions and have also effected some changes within the building and the same is liable to be removed. Defendants denied the same in their written statement and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

6. Trial court as per judgment dated 20.12.1991 held that the suit transaction is composite lease and consequently, civil court got jurisdiction. It is also found that the furniture was also given at the time of lease and is now in the possession of defendants. Ex.A-7 was relied on for the said purpose. Trial court found that even though Ex.A-7 is not registered it can be looked into for collateral purpose i.e., to prove the admission of parties which do not require registration. It is also found that defendants have made unauthorised construction and changes in the building and the name is also liable to be removed. Mandatory injunction was also granted. Damages for use and occupation was also awarded.

7. Thematter was taken on appeal by the appellants in A.S.Nos.50 of 1996 and 51 of 1996 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli. Lower appellate court also confirmed the decision of trial court and dismissed both the appeal.

8. Theconcurrent judgments of courts below are assailed in these Second Appeals.

9. The following substantial questions of law have been raised in the memorandum of appeals:

S.A.No.740 of 1999: (a) whether the courts below have got jurisdiction to entertain the suit for recovery of possession as claimed by the plaintiff against the defendants.

.(b) Whether the courts below are justified in coming to the conclusion that the lease transaction in respect of the suit schedule property in O.S.No.2367 of 1981 is a composite lease, especially when the prayer in the said suit itself is only for recovery of the suit schedule property alone and not the movables alleged to have been leased out to the defendants/.

(c) Whether the courts below are justified in coming to the conclusion that the lease transaction between the plaintiffs and the defendants is a composite lease based on Ex.A-7 especially the plaintiffs have not even pleaded in respect of Ex.A-7 and also not included in the prayer portion for the recovery of the moveables mentioned under Ex.A-7. S.A.No.741 of 1999: (a) Whether the court below are justified in granting a decree for mandatory injunction while the plaintiffs have not prov