Judgment :- This second appeal arises out of the Judgment in A.S.No.10 of 1993 reversing the Judgment of the trial Court and dismissing the Plaintiffs suit for declaration and possession. 2. Case of the first Plaintiff is that the first Defendant had become a Tenant under her agreeing to pay monthly rent of Rs.75/-. Alleging default in payment of rent from April, 1986, and subletting to Defendants 2 and 3, Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration and possession of the building in the Suit Property. 3. Admitting tenancy, the first Defendant filed Written Statement contending that in the year 1980, on the request of the first Plaintiff, the first Defendant has vacated the tenement and the first Defendant is in occupation of poromboke land and the first Defendant is not in occupation of Suit Property and hence, first Defendant is not bound to deliver vacant possession. 4. Four issues were framed in the trial Court. Parties adduced oral and documentary evidence. Even during the pendency of the suit, the first Plaintiff died on 110. 1989. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the legal heirs of the deceased first Plaintiff. In consideration of evidence, trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the Plaintiff has not taken steps to appoint Advocate Commissioner to identify the Suit Property. Observing that Plaintiff has not taken steps to prove that first Defendant is in occupation of Suit Property and drawing adverse inference against the Plaintiff for not adducing best evidence by taking Commissioner, the trial Court dismissed the suit. .5. The lower Appellate Court took the view that schedule of Ex.A-1 - Sale Deed and the plaint schedule property are one and the same and held that the Plaintiffs would be entitled to declaration of possession as prayed for. The lower Appellate Court further held that the first Defendant has not discharged the burden cast upon him in proving that he has surrendered possession of tenement to the Plaintiff and on those findings, allowed the appeal. .6. At the time when the second appeal was admitted, the following substantial question of law was formulated for consideration:- ."Whether the Judgment of the lower Appellate Court is vitiated by its failure to consider the entire evidence on record and apply the correct principles of law?" 7. .6. At the time when the second appeal was admitted, the following substantial question of law was formulated for consideration:- ."Whether the Judgment of the lower Appellate Court is vitiated by its failure to consider the entire evidence on record and apply the correct principles of law?" 7. Challenging the findings of the lower Appellate Court, on behalf of the appellants, it was contended that the defence plea of surrender of possession of demised property has been proved. It was further submitted that the property in occupation of Defendants is a Government poromboke land and possessory right of the Defendants in the said Government poromboke land has been recognized by the Government, as is shown in the documentary evidence Exs.B-4 to B-27, B-31 and B-32. It was further submitted that when the Suit Property was not identified, the Appellate Court was not justified in reversing the finding of the trial Court and ordering delivery of possession. 8. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs contended that when Plaintiffs have sought for declaration and possession, there was no necessity to seek appointment of Commissioner. It was further submitted that when the first Defendant has admitted tenancy, burden lies upon the Defendant to prove that he has surrendered possession of the demised tenement. 9. The suit is for declaration and possession. Suit Property relates to East West 49½ North South 45 and the superstructure thereon, in D.No.256/5, LF Road, Cumbum Town. Plaintiffs claim to have purchased the Suit Property under Ex.A-1 [dated 01.04.1936]. Admittedly, the first Defendant had become Tenant under the first Plaintiff as per Ex.A-2 [dated 10.03.1968] – Vardamana letter. The rent payable is at Rs.50/-. According to the first Plaintiff, the first Defendant has not paid rent from 1986. .10. The first Defendant has raised specific defence that he has surrendered possession of demised tenement and he has shifted to the western portion, which is a poromboke land. According to the first Defendant, in 1978, notice under S.7 of the Land Encroachment Act was issued to him calling upon him to remove the encroachment i.e. encroachment by way of thatched shed put up by the first Defendant in S.No.53/4 and workshop. Laying emphasis upon Ex.B-31, on behalf of Appellants, it was contended that the first Defendant is in occupation of poromboke land and not the property of the first Plaintiff. 11. Laying emphasis upon Ex.B-31, on behalf of Appellants, it was contended that the first Defendant is in occupation of poromboke land and not the property of the first Plaintiff. 11. As noticed earlier, in the plaint schedule, Suit Property is described as East West 49½, North South 45 along with superstructure bearing D.No.256/5. It is not known whether the property in occupation of first Defendant is the Suit Property or forming part of the Suit Property. Absolutely no evidence was adduced by either parties showing location of either Suit Property or the property in occupation of the Defendants. As rightly pointed out by the trial Court, the Plaintiffs ought to have taken Commissioner to identify the location of the Suit Property and the area which is in occupation of the Defendants. 12. The learned Counsel for the Respondents contended that when Defendant has admitted tenancy, burden lies upon the Defendant to prove that he has surrendered possession and that he is only in occupation of poromboke land. In a suit for ejectment, Plaintiff has to prove better title in himself, to the possession of the property than the right claimed by the Defendant. On the side of Plaintiffs, evidence is totally lacking. To prove the location of the Suit Property and the area in which the Defendant is in occupation and the location of poromboke land and other relevant facts. For ascertaining the same and in the interest of both parties, it is just and necessary to remit the matter back to the trial Court. 13. This Court is not oblivious of the fact that the matter is pending for more than two decades. However, at the risk of delay, justice has to be rendered between the parties. Without knowing the identification of the Suit Property and the area of the Suit Property, which is in the occupation of the Defendants, if this Court is to affirm the Decree of the Judgment of the Appellate Court, it would cause great confusion in the minds of the parties at the time of execution of the decree. On the other hand, if this Court is to confirm the Decree of the trial Court, it would amount to non-suiting the Plaintiffs, under whom the Defendant himself admits to be a Tenant. 14. On the other hand, if this Court is to confirm the Decree of the trial Court, it would amount to non-suiting the Plaintiffs, under whom the Defendant himself admits to be a Tenant. 14. In the interest of justice, and in the interest of both parties, Judgments of both the Courts are to be set aside and the matter is to be remitted back to the trial Court for consideration of the matter afresh. Respondents/Plaintiffs are directed to take necessary steps for appointment of Advocate Commissioner for inspecting the Suit Property and ascertaining the area of plaint schedule property, area of the Suit Property in occupation of the Defendants, area of poromboke land, if any, in the occupation of the Defendants and such other physical features. Both parties are directed to give appropriate memo of instructions to the Advocate Commissioner. The remuneration payable to the commissioner shall be borne out equally both by Plaintiffs and 1st Defendant. On filing of report of the Advocate Commissioner, the trial Court/ District Munsif Court, Uthamapalayam shall afford reasonable opportunity to both parties to adduce any further evidence and consider the matter afresh. It is made clear that the trial Court need not receive any documents subsequent to the dismissal of the suit O.S.No.112/1989. 15. In the result, the Judgment in A.S.No.10/93 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Periyakulam dated 212. 1995 and the Judgment made in O.S.No.1125/89 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Uthamapalayam dated 18.08.1992, are set aside. The suit O.S.No.1125/1989 is remitted back to the trial Court for consideration of the matter afresh in the light of the above directions. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.