Aggrieved over the decree and judgment of the learned trial Court decreeing the suit for Rs.5.60 lakhs with future damages of Rs.28,000/- per month in respect of A schedule properties and also damages of Rs.20,000/- per month in respect of B schedule properties till the delivery of possession, the present appeal came to be filed by the defendants. For the sake of convenience the parties are arrayed as per their own ranking before the trial Court.

2. Brief facts of the plaintiff's case is as follows:- The plaintiff is the partnership firm and they are the absolute owner of the suit A schedule property measuring 1.1 Acre of land together with office building, labour quarters, shops, electrical installations etc. on the two items of machinery connected with re-rolling mills was leased out to the defendants by a registered lease dated 13.12.1980. The Rent originally fixed was Rs.9,000/- for a period of five years. Subsequently, the lease period was extended till 1994. The lease period is now over. The monthly rent lastly paid was Rs.28,000/-. After the efflux of time as the defendants failed to deliver the vacant possession, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 23.09.1998 to the defendants calling upon them to deliver the vacant possession of the suit properties. Subsequent to the above notice the defendants paid a sum of Rs.56,000/- representing the rent for the months of September and October 1998 which was received by the plaintiff without prejudice to their contention. Thereafter, no amount was paid by the defendants. The balance rent payable by the defendants from 1.11.1998 upto 1.7.2000 for 20 months which works out to Rs.5,60,000/-. The said amount was claimed by way of damages for use and occupation of A schedule property in view of the termination of the tenancy. After termination of the lease in respect of A schedule properties, B schedule properties which is adjacent to the A schedule properties was unlawfully and stealthily, encroached by the defendants. Immediately on coming to know of the encroachment the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 10.04.2000 calling upon the defendants to pay damages of Rs.12,06,000/- for use and occupation of B schedule properties and also for delivery of possession of B schedule properties. The defendants issued a reply with false allegations. They also set up a new plea of oral agreement to purchase the suit properties and they claim that they have paid advance of Rs.25.00 lakhs. Further the defendants also pleaded that there was an arrangement between them and one of the partners of the plaintiff by name Mahindra Kumar Gupta in respect of sale of his share in the partnership firm. The arrangement pleaded by the defendants is false and untenable in law. The defendants always chronic defaulters in payment of rent and at no point of time they were regular in payment of rent. The defendants also issued two cheques dated 12.9.1995 and 23.9.1995 and they were dishonoured. Hence the suit.

3. The case of the defendants is as follows:- The suit itself is not maintainable under Section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932, as the name of the person who has signed the plaint as a partner in the firm has not been found in the Registrar of Firms as a partner. It is the admitted case of the first defendants that he was a tenant in the A schedule premises in an extent of 1.01 acre with the buildings from 31.12.1980 as per the lease agreement entered in to between him and the plaintiff for a period of five years on the monthly rental of Rs.9,000/-. During the year 1984 he wanted to dumb more materials he took B schedule property on lease and the lease amount was fixed as Rs.14,000/- per month from the year 1984. The entry to the premises was changed to the Eastern side from Mettupalayam road. The rent was periodically increased to Rs.21,000/- and then Rs.28,000/- for the entire 2.02 acres with the buildings and machineries. The allegation that the defendants was encroached upon the B schedule