JUDGMENT : N.SENTHILKUMAR, J. The present suit has been filed for the following reliefs:- a) directing the defendant to handover vacant possession of the Schedule Mentioned Property to the Plaintiff; b) Directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff, a sum of Rs.1,54,04,334/- towards rental arrears of Rs.1,31,63,334/- from 01.07.2021 till 28.06.2023 along with interest of Rs.22,41,000/- at 18% per annum from the due date till 28.06.2023; c) directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,17,88,084/- towards damages of Rs.1,04,13,334/- for unlawful use and occupation from 01.12.2021 to 28.06.2023 along with interest of Rs.13,74,750/- at 18% per annum from the due date till 28.06.2023; d) directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.49,07,595/- towards GST of Rs.42,43,800/- from 01.07.2021 to 28.06.2023 along with interest of Rs.6,63,795/- at 18% per annum from the due date till 28.06.2023; e) directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff future mesne profits towards damages for illegal use and occupation of the schedule mentioned property from 29.06.2023 till the date of handing over of possession at the monthly rent of Rs.11,00,000/- per monthly; f)directing the defendant to pay future interest at the rate of 18% on the rental arrears of Rs.1,31,63,334/- being the principal sum from 29.06.2023 till the date of actual realisation; g)directing the defendant to pay future interest at 18% per annum on the damages for unlawful use and occupation amount to Rs.1,04,13,334/- being the principal sum from 29.06.2023 till the date of actual realisation; h) directing the defendant to pay future interest at 18% per annum on the GST of Rs.42,43,800/- being the principal sum from 29.06.2023 till the date of actual realisation; i)grant the costs of the suit. 2. The averments made in the plaint are as follows:- (a) The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property situated in Old.Nos.40/1, 40/A, 40/B, New Door No.176, Eldams Road, Teynampet, Chennai-600 018 admeasuring 3361 sq.ft., comprised in R.S.No.1548/7, block No.30, Mylapore, Chennai, more fully described in the schedule of property. (b) In the year 2019, the defendant approached the plaintiff to take on lease the schedule mentioned premises for a period of 5 years for commercial purposes. The defendant assured the plaintiff that she would be prompt in payment of monthly rents. (b) In the year 2019, the defendant approached the plaintiff to take on lease the schedule mentioned premises for a period of 5 years for commercial purposes. The defendant assured the plaintiff that she would be prompt in payment of monthly rents. The plaintiff agreed and the schedule mentioned properties was leased to the defendant for a period of 5 years vide Lease Deed dated 07.03.2019 for carrying on her commercial activities. The monthly rent was fixed at Rs.5,50,000/- with effect from 07.03.2019 with a provision for enhancement by 12% after 3 years. GST was payable by the defendant which was in addition to the monthly rents. (c) Post the execution of the Rental Agreement on 07.03.2019, the rented premises (Schedule mentioned property) was handed over to the defendant. The tenancy commenced from 07.03.2019 and the defendant promised to pay the rent in full on the 5 th day of every succeeding English calendar month. The defendant paid monthly rents from 01.05.2019 till 30.06.2021. Since 01.07.2021, the defendant has been a wilful and chronic defaulter in payment of monthly rents. The plaintiff states that as per Clause 19 of the rental agreement, if the tenant fails to pay rent for three consecutive months, the landlord may terminate the tenancy without giving any notice. (d) In terms of Clause 19 of the Rental Agreement, the plaintiff issued a notice dated 23.11.2021 terminating the tenancy of the defendant with immediate effect. The defendant was called upon to hand over keys of the schedule mentioned premises to the plaintiff's representative Mr.Shakeel Sheikh on 1 st December 2021. The Defendant was also informed about the criminal proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate against her. The notice was delivered to the defendant on 25.11.2021. (e) The defendant issued a reply dated 29.11.2021 containing vague statements and baseless averments and suppressed her wilful and default in payment of monthly rents and sidestepped the issue of rental arrears and brushed aside the criminal case. (f) The plaintiff issued a rejoinder dated 06.01.2022 stating that an FIR has been registered against the defendant by the Enforcement Directorate in a Rs.200 crore money laundering case. The Enforcement Directorate has stated that the defendant is a master con woman, strategist as well as the brain and key factor behind the schemes created to launder the proceeds of crime. The Enforcement Directorate has stated that the defendant is a master con woman, strategist as well as the brain and key factor behind the schemes created to launder the proceeds of crime. The defendant and her husband Sukesh Chandrashekar have conspired and colluded to cheat many innocents. The defendant was informed that she is in default and on account of other illegalities, she was called upon to hand over vacant possession of the premises immediately, failing which, the plaintiff would be constrained to seek appropriate relief in accordance with law. (g) That notice was delivered on 07.01.2022; even after receipt of notice, the defendant has taken no steps to clear the rental arrears. It is further stated that after the commencement of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of the Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 [hereinafter called as “TNRRRLT Act”] on 22.02.2019, all tenancies must be compulsorily registered. However, the defendant failed to come forward to register the tenancy. Hence, the plaintiff filed an application bearing No.TN-242022012105400 with the Rent Authority for registration of the rental agreement dated 07.03.2019 and grant of T.R.No., on 21.01.2022. However, the said application was kept pending by the Rent Authority. (h) The plaintiff filed R.L.T.O.P. S.R.No.1901 of 2022 before the X Court of Small Causes at Chennai on 17.03.2022. However, the said RLTOP was returned on the ground that since the tenancy between the parties has not been registered and since a T.R.No., has not been issued by the Rent Authority, the petition cannot be numbered. (i) On 27.09.2022, the defendant sent a letter to the plaintiff admitting default of monthly rent since 01.07.2021 and promising to handover vacant possession of the schedule mentioned property by 10.12.2022. The defendant failed to honor her own commitment of handing over vacant possession of the premises on 10.12.2022 and in contrary to her undertaking, the defendant filed O.S.No.8456 of 2022 alleging that the plaintiff has resorted to unlawful means to evict the defendant and sought for permanent injunction restraining the Plaintiff from evicting the defendant except by due process of law. The plaintiff filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure to reject the Plaint. The plaintiff filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure to reject the Plaint. (j) Even after receipt of the notice dated 23.11.2021 terminating the tenancy, the defendant failed to handover possession and continues to be in illegal possession of the schedule mentioned property and carrying on her commercial operations and monetising therefrom. Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay double the fixed monthly rent i.e., Rs.5,50,000 x 2 = Rs.11,00,000/- towards damages for unlawful use and occupation from 01.12.2021. (k) The defendant has been lodged in Mandoli Prison, however, she continues to run the business under the name of Nail Artistry from the Schedule mentioned property through her staff. 3. The defendant has filed a written statement. The crux of the written statement is that, the defendant at the time of entering into the rental agreement was informed that the property is 3537 sq.ft. But the Plaintiff now pleads that the property is only 3361 sq ft. Hence, the excess rent collected by the plaintiff has to be refunded. There is no rental arrears as on date and the plaintiff is regularly collecting the rent in cash without issuing any rental receipt. She has been falsely implicated in the FIR filed by the Enforcement Directorate. The notice with regard to the present proceedings is not served. Suit requires to be contested as a regular suit since the agreement is not a registered agreement. The title deed of the property which stands in the name of the Plaintiff was not filed by the Plaintiff to prove his ownership over the property. 4. The trial commenced after framing of the following issues in the present suit. 1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get vacant possession of the Schedule mentioned property from the defendant? 2. Whether the defendant is liable to pay rental arrears along with interest @ 18% per annum as sought for in the plaint? 3. Whether the defendant is liable to pay damages for unlawful use and occupation along with interest @ 18% per annum as sought for in the plaint? 4. Whether the defendant is liable to pay the amount which was spent towards GST along with interest at 18% per annum as sought for in the plaint? 5. 3. Whether the defendant is liable to pay damages for unlawful use and occupation along with interest @ 18% per annum as sought for in the plaint? 4. Whether the defendant is liable to pay the amount which was spent towards GST along with interest at 18% per annum as sought for in the plaint? 5. Whether the defendant is liable to pay future mesne profits towards damages for illegal use and occupation of the schedule mentioned property as sought for in the plaint? 6. Whether the defendant is liable to pay future interest @ 18% on the rental arrears as sought for in the plaint? 7. Whether the defendant is liable to pay future interest at 18% per annum on the damages for unlawful use and occupation as sought for in the plaint? 8. Whether the defendant is liable to pay future interest at 18% per annum on the GST? 9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the costs of the suit? 10. What other relief the plaintiff is entitled to? 5. On the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and Exhibits P.1 to P.15 were marked. On the side of the defendant, the defendant was examined as DW1. Ex.X.1 was also marked. 6. Heard both sides and perused the records carefully. 7. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that based on a Rental Agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant on 07.03.2019, which was marked as Ex.P.2, the monthly rent was fixed as Rs.5,50,000/- and the lease was for a period of 5 years commencing from 07.03.2019 to 07.03.2025. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant failed to make payment of the rent from July 2021. Clause 6 and 19 of the rental agreement dated 07.03.2019 are relevant and are extracted as under:- “6. That the tenancy is for a duration of five years lock in period commencing from 07.03.2019 ending with 07.03.2025 when the rental agreement shall expire where upon the premises shall be vacated by the Tenant possession delivered to the Landlord. ... 19. Clause 6 and 19 of the rental agreement dated 07.03.2019 are relevant and are extracted as under:- “6. That the tenancy is for a duration of five years lock in period commencing from 07.03.2019 ending with 07.03.2025 when the rental agreement shall expire where upon the premises shall be vacated by the Tenant possession delivered to the Landlord. ... 19. If the tenant fails to pay the rent for three months consecutively to the Landlord, the landlord may terminate the tenancy without giving any notice.” As the defendant has not paid the rent from July 2021, legal notice dated 23.11.2021 which was marked as Ex.P.3 was issued to the defendant which was duly received by the defendant. The defendant gave a reply notice dated 29.11.2021 to the termination notice dated 23.11.2021 (which was marked as Ex.P.4) , wherein, the defendant denied the contents of the legal notice. Thereafter, the plaintiff issued a rejoinder dated 06.01.2022 to the reply given by the defendant which was marked as Ex.P.5. Subsequently, the defendant had written a letter to the plaintiff on 27.09.2022 informing that the defendant would vacate the premises as the defendant is unable to pay the rent. 8. The learned counsel for the plaintiff would further submit that the defendant has committed default in payment of rent from July 2021 and is in unlawful possession of the schedule premises. Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought in the present Suit. 9. The learned counsel for the plaintiff, in support of his contentions, has relied upon the following decisions: 1. Ratheesh Vs V.S.Mary 2023/KER/55491 . 2. Sengappan Vs. Arumbatha V eda Vinayagar Temple 2000-L.W. 3. Javer Chand and Ors Vs Pukhraj Surana AIR 1961 SC 1655 4.Mohammed Munvar V S N.C.Nesan and Ors. 5.Paramasivan Vs. Pandian MANU/TN/1363/2016 6. Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs Sudera Realty Private Limited 2022 SCC Online 1161 7. M/s.Southern Triple A Investments Pvt Ltd Vs. M/s.OMNE Agate Systems Pvt. Ltd [Civil Suit No.838 of 2010] 8.Thangam and Another Vs Navamani Ammal 2024 INSC 164 . 9. Dr.H.K.Sharma Vs Shri Ram Lal [Civil Appeal no.1237-1238 of 2019. 10. Kamlesh Kushwaha Vs Vibha Kumar MANU/MP/1179/2022. 11. Kishorbhai Vs Gandubhai Pethani Vs Stte of Gujart and Anr. 2013 SCC Omline 1179. 10. M/s.OMNE Agate Systems Pvt. Ltd [Civil Suit No.838 of 2010] 8.Thangam and Another Vs Navamani Ammal 2024 INSC 164 . 9. Dr.H.K.Sharma Vs Shri Ram Lal [Civil Appeal no.1237-1238 of 2019. 10. Kamlesh Kushwaha Vs Vibha Kumar MANU/MP/1179/2022. 11. Kishorbhai Vs Gandubhai Pethani Vs Stte of Gujart and Anr. 2013 SCC Omline 1179. 10. The learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit that in the case of Ratheesh Vs V.S.Mary reported in 2023/KER/55491 , the Kerala High Court discussed about the effect of the document marked without objection during Trial Stage. In the said decision, in para 20, it is held as follows: “20. Another question arises is the legal effect of marking a document without objection. 21. In the decision of Javer Chand Vs. Pukhraj Surana, AIR 1961 SC 1655 , a Four Bench decision of the Apex Court considered he validity of an instrument which had not been duly stamped and held that when a question as to the admissibility of a document is raised on the ground that it has not been stamped or has not been properly stamped, it has to be decided then and there when the document would be tendered in evidence. Once the court rightly or wrongly decided to admit the document in evidence, so far as the parties are concerned, the matter is closed. It has further held that once a document had been admitted in evidence, as aforesaid, it is not open either to the trial court itself or to the court of appeal or revision to go behind that order.” Therefore, in the present case, the defendant cannot argue that Ex.P8 cannot be relied upon by the Plaintiff for the reasons that once the court rightly or wrongly decided to admit the document in evidence, so far as the parties are concerned, the matter is closed. 11. In Segappan Vs. Arumbatha Veda Vinayagar Temple case [2000-1- L.W], it is held that unregistered lease deed to prove the creation of a lease by oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession. 12. In Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs. Sudera Realty Private Limited [2022 SCC Online SC 1161] , it is held that Tenant who continues to occupy the premises after termination of tenancy is a trespasser and is liable to compensate for unlawful use and occupation. 13. In M/s.Southern Triple A Investments Pvt Ltd Vs. 12. In Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs. Sudera Realty Private Limited [2022 SCC Online SC 1161] , it is held that Tenant who continues to occupy the premises after termination of tenancy is a trespasser and is liable to compensate for unlawful use and occupation. 13. In M/s.Southern Triple A Investments Pvt Ltd Vs. M/s.OMNE Agate Systems Pvt. Ltd [Civil Suit No.838 of 2010] it is held that Landlord who is deprived of his legitimate rental income due to tenant's default is entitled to interest on the outstanding rent even if the rental agreement did not provide for payment of interest. 14. In Kamlesh Kushwaha Vs. Vibha Kumar [MANU/MP/1179/2022] it is held that in the absence of pleadings no evidence can be looked into and vice versa. In Kishorbhai Gandhubhai Pethani Vs. State of Gujarat and another [2013 SCC Online SC 1179] , it is held that perjury strikes at the root of the justice delivery system and disturbs the accuracy of the findings recorded. 15. Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendant contended that there is a difference in the extent of property as per the agreement and the patta; therefore, once there is no clarity with regard to the extent of the property, the plaintiff cannot seek recovery of possession and damages. The learned counsel for the defendant had relied upon the question and answer posted to the plaintiff in the cross examination: Q10: What is the total extent of the property leased out to the defendant? A: 3537 sq.f.t Q11: But you own only 3361 sq.ft. A: There is always a difference between the measurement in patta and the sale deed. A12: To what extent is the rent fixed? A: The rent is paid for 3537 sq.ft. Q13: I put it to you that you are not entitled collect rent for the extent of 3537 sq.ft. A: I deny. The learned counsel for the defendant contended that unless a proper survey is made for the property which is rented out to the defendant, the suit cannot be decided. 16. The learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the defendant was in incarceration from September 2021 and the Advocate Commission appointed by this court recorded the evidence of the defendant in the course of trial. 16. The learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the defendant was in incarceration from September 2021 and the Advocate Commission appointed by this court recorded the evidence of the defendant in the course of trial. The learned counsel further contended that an advance of Rs.5 lakhs was paid as a security deposit and in the absence of valid termination by the plaintiff, institution of suit for recovery of possession was bad in law. 17. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the defendant that the rental agreement is an unregistered document. Unless it is registered as per Section 49 of the Registration Act , the plaintiff cannot seek the reliefs sought in the present Suit. Issue Nos.1 & 2: 18. The plaintiff has demonstrated his case by producing the rental agreement which was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant for a fixed term of 5 years from 07.03.2019 to 07.03.2025 and the validity of the agreement itself has came to an end on 07.03.2025. Without any extension specifically agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant has no right to stay in the said premises as the agreement has come to an end. 19. That apart, there is no evidence produced by the defendant to establish that the rent was paid upto date and in the absence of any document or even a suggestion during the cross examination with regard to payment of arrears of rent by the defendant to the plaintiff, the court cannot come to the conclusion that the defendant has paid the rent as per the agreement. 20. It is the clear case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has issued termination notice dated 23.11.2021 which has been duly delivered to the defendant and a reply was also given by the defendant denying all the contents of the notice. The plaintiff has issued a rejoinder to the defendant which was marked as Ex.P.5 and thereafter, a letter has been sent by the plaintiff to the defendant stating that she is willing to vacate the premises. In such circumstances, the defendant cannot now run contra and state that the claim for arrears of rent is a fraudulent one. Further, during cross examination, the defendant had admitted that she has not paid the rent from August 2021 as she was in prison. In such circumstances, the defendant cannot now run contra and state that the claim for arrears of rent is a fraudulent one. Further, during cross examination, the defendant had admitted that she has not paid the rent from August 2021 as she was in prison. The relevant portion of the cross examination of the defendant is extracted hereunder: Q 18 : When were you arrested by the ED? A : I was arrested in Oct. 2021. Q 22 : Since when you have not been able to pay the rents? A : August, 2021 when I arrested by the EOW. A reading of the above answers given by the Defendant during cross examination establishes the case of the Plaintiff that the Defendant has defaulted in payment of rent. 21. Admittedly, the premises is rented for commercial purpose and the defendant occupied it. In such circumstances, it is unnecessary to go into the issues relating to the extent of property as the defendant agreed to pay the rent specified in the agreement. This court cannot come to the conclusion that the defendant has paid the rent by way of cash payment as the defendant failed to produce supporting materials and oral evidence to establish her averments. In view of the above, Issue Nos.1 & 2 are answered in favour of the Plaintiff. 22. One of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the defendant is that the Plaintiff has relied upon a letter written by the defendant to the plaintiff regarding vacating the premises which was marked as Ex.P.8. It is contended that the defendant was in prison at that point of time and the said letter does not contain any seal or authorisation from the Prison Authorities. Therefore, the same cannot be relied upon. Though this argument inspires confidence, it is to be noted that, at the time of trial, there was no cross examination of the plaintiff with regard to the admissibility or credibility of the letter 27.09.2022 (Ex.P8)) from the defendant's side. In the absence of any specific question or even a suggestion during cross examination of the Plaintiff, such an argument of the defendant's counsel cannot be taken into consideration. Therefore, the said argument is negatived. Issue Nos.3 to 10 23. In the absence of any specific question or even a suggestion during cross examination of the Plaintiff, such an argument of the defendant's counsel cannot be taken into consideration. Therefore, the said argument is negatived. Issue Nos.3 to 10 23. While considering Issue Nos.3 to 8, it is to be noted that, the defendant having failed to pay rent, had occupied the schedule property and continued to run her business. Even after termination of the rental agreement and institution of legal proceedings by the Plaintiff, the defendant had chosen not to clear the arrears of rent and handover vacant possession. It is clear that the defendant is in unlawful occupation of the schedule property for years together which resulted in irreparable loss and hardship to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, Issue Nos. 3 to 8 are also answered in favour of the Plaintiff. 24. In view of the above observations and by considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is not inclined to grant the costs of the Suit and the Plaintiff is not entitled to any other relief. Issue Nos.9 & 10 are answered accordingly. 25(a) The Defendant is directed to handover vacant possession of the schedule mentioned property to the Plaintiff; the defendant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,54,04,334/- towards rental arrears of Rs.1,31,63,334/- from 01.07.2021 till 28.06.2023 along with interest of Rs.22,41,000/- at 18% interest per annum from the due date till 28.06.2023; the defendant is directed to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,17,88,084/- towards damages of Rs.1,04,13,334/- for unlawful use and occupation from 01.12.2021 to 28.06.2023 along with interest of Rs.13,74,750/- at 18% per annum from the due date till 28.06.2023; the defendant is directed to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.49,07,595/- towards GST of Rs.42,43,800/- from 01.07.2021 to 28.06.2023 along with interest of Rs.6,63,795/- at 18% per annum from the due date till 28.06.2023. 5(a). ith interest of Rs.6,63,795/- at 18% per annum from the due date till 28.06.2023 25(b). 5(a). ith interest of Rs.6,63,795/- at 18% per annum from the due date till 28.06.2023 25(b). Further, the defendant is directed to pay future interest at the rate of 18% on the rental arrears of Rs.1,31,63,334/- being the principal sum from 29.06.2023 till the date of actual realisation; the defendant is directed to pay future interest at 18% per annum on the damages for unlawful use and occupation amounting to Rs.1,04,13,334/- being the principal sum from 29.06.2023 till the date of actual realisation; the defendant is directed to pay future interest at 18% per annum on the GST of Rs.42,43,800/- being the principal sum from 29.06.2023 till the date of actual realisation, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. Though, a future mesne profits towards damages for illegal use and occupation of the schedule mentioned property from 29.06.2023 till the date of handing over of possession at the monthly rent of Rs.11,00,000/- per month is claimed, by the Plaintiff, the said claim is rejected as it is without any basis. 26. In the result, the Civil Suit is decreed to the extent indicated above. No costs.Â