L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

These three appeals arise out of a common judgment, dated 18.06.2008 rendered by the Court of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in three separate suits being O.S.Nos.314 of 2004, 461 of 2006 and 64 of 2007. While the appellant figured as plaintiff in O.S.Nos.314 of 2004 and 64 of 2007, it is the sole defendant in O.S.No.461 of 2006.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in O.S.No.64 of 2007.

The 1st defendant, by name G. Venkateswarlu is the owner of premises bearing No.8-3-833/156, plot No.156, Kamalapuri Colony, Phase III, Hyderabad, constructed over an extent of 423.57 square yards. He gave the premises on lease to the plaintiff, M/s. Sri Surya Granites with effect from 01.02.1997. Initially, the rent was Rs.1,000/- per month and later on, it was enhanced.

The plaintiff states that the 1st defendant is basically a resident of United Kingdom and he used to entrust the administration and management of the property either to his son or his friend, by name Hanumantha Rao. According to the plaintiff, the 1st defendant orally agreed to sell the property, when he visited India in January 2002 in the presence of his son i.e., 2nd defendant and Sri Hanumanth Rao, for a consideration of Rs.18,70,000/-. It was also pleaded that as a sequel to the oral agreement, the 2nd defendant received a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- as advance, vide receipt, dated 14.05.2002.

The plaintiff filed O.S.No.4619 of 2004 against the 2nd defendant for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. Later on, the suit was renumbered as O.S.No.64 of 2007. It is in that suit that reference was made to the so-called oral agreement of sale and the receipt. Since defendants 1 and 2 denied the oral agreement or receipt of any advance, the plaintiff filed O.S.No.314 of 2004 for the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale. Obviously in view of these developments, the 1st defendant i.e., owner filed O.S.No.461 of 2006 for recovery of possession of the suit schedule premises duly terminating the lease.

The gist of the contention of the plaintiff was that the 1st defendant who is the owner of the premises agreed orally to sell the premises and under his authorization, the 2nd defendant received advance of Rs.2,70,000/-. It was alleged that despite repeated demands, the 1st defendant refused to execute sale deed and on the other hand, the 2nd defendant was trying to interfere with its possession of the premises.

The stand of defendants 1 and 2 was that there was no oral agreement of sale whatever and Ex.A.1 was a fabricated document. According to them, there used to be commercial transactions for supply of granite etc., between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant. It was also pleaded that the 2nd defendant took hand loan of Rs.70,000/- from the son of the plaintiff through a cheque, dated 14.05.2002 and Ex.A.1 was issued in relation thereto. They pleaded that when the cheque was presented, it was noticed that the balance to the credit of the account holder was only Rs.69,000/-and accordingly, the figures in the cheque were altered by the issuer of the cheque. In the suit filed by them, they prayed for eviction of the plaintiff stating that the tenancy was terminated.

The trial Court dismissed O.S.No.314 of 2004 and 64 of 2007 and decreed O.S.No.461 of 2006, through its common judgment.

On the basis of the pleadings before it, the trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration :

O.S.No.314 of 2004

1. Whether the plaintiff has obtained the suit premises on lease on 1-2-1997 from the defendant on monthly rent of Rs.1,000/-per month and that he is doing granite business in the said premises?

2. Whether the present rent is Rs.3,000/-per month?

3. Whether the plaintiff has paid part of the property tax under intimation to the defendant represented by V. Hanumantha Rao and carried repairing works in the said premises?

4. Whether in the presence