false. Even assuming that the lease deed has been executed by the plaintiff, the lease period is only for 5 years. The lease period has expired in 2007 itself. From the expiry of the lease, the defendant's possession is only as that of a trespasser. The plaintiff's suit is not one for ejection but it is one for recovery of possession. Therefore, de hors the execution of the lease deed, if the defendant's possession is found to be illegal, the plaintiff would be entitled to a decree for possession. The finding of the lower appellate Court that the lease deed itself is invalid, in my opinion derails the defence. Admittedly, the lease period is for 5 years and it is not shown that the lease deed is a registered instrument, therefore, the lease deed cannot be relied upon to prove the lease for a period of 5 years in favour of the defendant. Even assuming that the lease was for 5 years, the 5 years period expired in 2007 itself. Hence, the questions of law Nos.1 and 2 answered against the appellant. On the 3rd question of law, Mr.K.Sivasubramaniam, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the suit filed before the Civil Court is not maintainable. Such a plea was not taken before the Courts below. The maintainability of the suit before the Civil Court would depend on the fact whether the property is situated in a notified area as shown in Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. In order to attract the provisions of the said Act, it must be shown that the property is situated within a notified area and the evidence to the effect is totally lacking. The issue of jurisdiction of the Civil court has been taken for the first time in this second appeal by the appellant, I do not think that this Court can entertain such a plea as the same would depend determination of certain question of fact. Therefore, the 3rd question of law answered against the appellant.
