The defendants are the appellants herein. The appeal is directed against the concurrent finding of the Courts below allowing the suit for recovery of rental arrears, damages for use and occupation and recovery of vacant possession of the suit property.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as per their rank and status shown in the suit.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff's mother let out the suit premises to one Rangiammal for rent and after the demise of Rangiammal, her daughter-in-law and grandson, who are the first and second defendants respectively continued to be in possession of the suit property as tenant paying rent of Rs.25/- p.m. Since the suit property was in dilapidated condition, the plaintiff requested the defendants to vacate the premises for demolition and re-construction. The defendants stopped paying rent and refused to vacate the premises. Hence, notice was issued to the defendants on 8.11.1983 to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the suit property.

4. The defendants in their written statement denied the landlord-tenant relationship between their mother Rangiammal and the plaintiff's mother. They contented that the said Rangiammal and her husband Mara Vannan were living in the suit property since 1925. Mara Vannan died leaving behind his wife, two sons and three daughters. The legal heirs of Mara Vannan are holding the property in their own right. Muthan and Arumugam are sons of Mara Vannan. First defendant and the Second defendant are the wife and son of Muthan respectively. The third defendant is the son of Mara Vannan. The defendants are in occupation of their respective portions in the suit property. Neither the defendants nor their forefathers were tenant under the plaintiff or his mother. Being in possession and enjoyment of the property, since 1925, they claim possessory title over the suit property and pray for dismissal of the suit.

5. Before the trial Court, 5 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.5 and 64 documents were marked as Exs.A1 to Ex.A64 on the side of the plaintiff and 2 witnesses were examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2 and one document was examined as Ex.B1 on the side of the defendants. The Advocate commissioner was examined as CW-1 and through him, his report, plan and surveyor's plan were marked as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 on the side of the Court. The Chitta, Adangal and plan in respect of S.No. 286 was marked as Ex.X-1.

6. The trial Court, on considering the pleadings and evidence, has decreed the suit granting 3 months time to the defendants to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the suit property to the second plaintiff. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, the defendants preferred appeal but lost. Hence, this second appeal.

7. This Court, while admitting the Second Appeal has formulated the following Substantial Questions of Law for consideration:-

“(1) When the appellants and their pre-decessors are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, which is a Natham Poramboke, ever since 1925, whether the respondent is entitled to decree for delivery of possession, in the absence of any evidence to show that the appellants are her tenant?

(2) Whether the Courts below are correct in law in placing reliance upon Exs.A63 and 64 unregistered and unstamped lease deeds, which are inadmissible in evidence and cannot be looked into for any purpose?”

8. Mr.P.Valliappan, the learned counsel for the appellant/defendants submitted that, the discrepancies in the survey number mentioned in the suit schedule and the exhibits relied by the plaintiffs were not taken note by the Courts below. The suit property is not situated in Gopal Pillai Lane, but in Vannar lane. Likewise, Exs.A56 to 59 do not tally with the description of the suit property. Contrary to law, the Courts below have admitted and relied on Exs.A63 and A64, which are unregistered documents and inadmissible in evidence. Ex.A53-sale deed does not relate to the suit property. Whil