submitted that from the cross-examiantion of DW-1 and DW-2 the ownership of the plaintiff was well-established but the trial court and the appellate court without considering the cross-examination of DW-1 and DW-2 has rejected the plaint of the appellant plaintiff on the ground that the title of the suit property was not proved. He also submitted that in a suit between landlord and tenant, for determining tenancy, the tenant is not at liberty to deny title of the landlord. He also submitted that rent note was executed by the tenant in favour of landlord and there was no necessity for signature of the plaintiff, therefore, rent note is a valid document and can be legally read against the tenant. He further relied upon judgment of Madras High Court in case of Sridharan Vs. S. Natarajan 2007 (3) CTC 45. He specifically referred the limitation act and submitted that limitation in case of determination of tenancy begins from the date of notice and not as computed by learned trial court. He also submitted that the defendants had not only denied the title of the landlord but claimed adversely to the interest of the landlord, therefore, they are also entitled to be evicted on the ground of denial of title. He further submitted that the hostile claim of defendants was never made before filing of written statement, therefore, same cannot be considered as an adverse possession. He also referred that defendants have claimed to purchase the property but has not produced any document to support their claim hence they are not entitled for any protection. He also submitted that the trial court has committed serious error while deciding issue nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 against the appellant plaintiff. He also submitted that with
