The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, specifically regarding the exemption of new buildings from the Act's purview.

1. This second appeal is focussed by the defendants, inveighing the judgment and decree dated 11.7.2007 passed by the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in A.S.No.573 of 2005 reversing the judgment and decree dated 13.9.2005 passed by the XIV Asst.City Civil Court, Chennai, in O.S.No.574 of 1999, which was filed for recovery of possession of the suit property and for damages etc.

2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. Narratively but precisely, broadly but briefly the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus:

(a) The respondents herein as plaintiffs filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:

"to pass judgment and decree against the defendants-

a) directing the defendants to deliver vacant possession of the premises in the second floor at No.36, Thirupalli Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai-79, morefully described in the plaint schedule;

b) directing the defendants to pay the plaintiffs a sum of Rs.1000/- per day by way of damages for illegal and unlawful occupation of the suit premises from January, 1999 till the date of handing over vacant possession;

c) directing the defendants to pay the plaintiff the arrears of rent totalling to Rs.18,000/-(from 1.10.1998 to 31.12.1998) and arrears of electricity charges of Rs.3,829/- in all

Rs.21,829/-;

d) directing the defendants to pay the plaintiffs the costs of the suit."(extracted as such)

(b) Written statement was filed by the defendants, resisting the suit. Whereupon, the trial Court framed the issues.

(c) On the side of the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A25. On the defendants' side, the 1st defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and marked Exs.B1 to B19. The handwriting expert was examined as C.W.1 and Exs.C1 to C7 were marked as Court documents.

(d) Ultimately, the trial Court dismissed the suit, as against which, the appeal was filed. Whereupon the first appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court and decreed the suit.

4. Challenging and impugning the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, the second appeal has been filed by the defendants on various grounds inter alia thus:

(i) The first appellate Court failed to adhere to Order 41 Rule 31 of C.P.C. in rendering its findings quite antithetical to the reasoned findings given by the trial Court.

(ii) While the first appellate Court responding to the prayer of the plaintiffs to send Ex.B9 for expert opinion, so as to verify the disputed signature of the first plaintiff, it failed to send along with it the admitted ante litem motam signatures of the first plaintiff available on record. The sample signatures of the first plaintiff taken before the Court and the signatures found in Vdakalat and affidavit should not have been relied on by the expert for giving his opinion as though the disputed signature is a forged one.

(iii) Exs.B3, B6, B11 and B12 clinched the issue and they proved unambiguously and unequivocally that the defendants took on lease two portions, so as to say, the ground and the second floor belonging to the plaintiffs for a total rent of Rs.6,000/-, so to say, at the rate of Rs.3000/- p.m. for each floor and for that alone Rs.50,000/- each totalling one lakh was paid as advance. But all these facts have not been considered by the first appellate Court.

(iv) The self-contradictory statements made by the plaintiffs were not considered by the first appellate Court.

(v) The Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act even though was very much applicable to the demised premises, the first appellate Court erroneously held as though the building concerned is a new building and it is exempt from the purview of the said Act.

5. Accordingly, the following substantial questions of law are found suggested in the second appeal.

"a) Whether the judgment of the lower appellate