K. Sekardoing business in the name of M/s.S.S.P.Washing, who figured as the defendant in O.S.No.8 of 2009 before the trial Court (Sub Court), Poonamallee, is the appellant in the second appeal. Radha Lakshmi, who filed the above said suit as plaintiff, is the respondent herein. The suit was filed for directing the appellant/defendant to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit property, namely a shed bearing No.KR-1, Teleflo Mini Industrial Estate at No.3/88, Mount-Poonamallee Road, Ramapuram Village, Chennai – 89, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,550/- towards rent for the month of June 2008, for recovery of a sum of Rs.52,500/- towards damages for the wrongful use of the suit premises for the months of July, August, September, October and November 2008, directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.10,500/- per month towards future damages for the wrongful use of the suit premises from the month of September 2008 till the date of delivery of the suit premises and for costs. The suit was filed contending that the appellant/defendant became a tenant under the respondent/plaintiff and the lease was sought to be terminated by issuing a notice dated 09.06.2008 for which the appellant/defendant issued a reply notice dated 24.06.2008 denying the title of the respondent/plaintiff as his landlord and that thereby he lost his right to continue as a tenant in respect of the suit premises. The appellant/defendant resisted the suit by filing a written statement with a general denial of plaint averments, but with an admission that he became a tenant by entering into an agreement with the respondent/plaintiff on 15.06.2003 for a monthly rent of Rs.3,500/- and by making a payment of Rs.42,000/- as deposit and that the lease was for business purpose, namely for carrying on the business of washing of cloths. The appellant/defendant also did admit in the written statement that he received the notice dated 09.06.2008 terminating the tenancy and that the said notice was replied by a reply notice dated 24.06.2008. In addition to the said contention, the appellant/defendant also contended in his written statement that the suit property did not belong to the plaintiff as the major part of the property (4050 square meters) had been taken over by the Government under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978; that thus the land stood vested with the Government and that hence, the suit for eviction and recovery of possession and for other reliefs should be dismissed with costs.

2. Based on the above said averments, the learned trial Judge framed following three issues:

1) Whether there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled the relief of delivery of possession? and

3) To what relief?

3. In the trial, one witness was examined as PW1 and 14 documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A14 on the side of the plaintiff (respondent herein) and one witness was examined as DW1 and one document was marked as Ex.B1 on the side of the defendant (appellant herein). At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial Judge answered issues 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff (respondent herein) and based on the said finding, the learned trial Judge, by its judgment and decree dated 20.07.2010, directed the appellant herein/defendant to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit property within a month from the date of the decree. So far as the relief of rent for the month of June 2008 is concerned, the same was granted as prayed for. So far the relief of damages for use and occupation is concerned, the learned trial Judge granted the same at the rate of Rs.7000/- uniformly from July 2008 till the date of delivery of possession.

4. As against the said judgment and decree, the appellant herein/defendant preferred an appeal on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruvallur in A.S.No.46 of 2011. The learned first appellate Judge, after hearing both sides a