Interference by High Court is called for it the findings rendered by courts below is held erroneous or arbitrary.

K.A.Swami, C.J.

These 4 L.P.Appeals are preferred against the common judgment dated 14. 1991 passed in A.S. Nos.427 to 430 of 1981 respectively. Those 4 appeals were preferred against the judgment and decree passed in O.S. Nos.3811 to 3814 of 1978. All these suits were filed for specific performance of the agreements dated 8. 1977. O.S. No.3811 of 1978 was filed by T.Periasamy Nadar, T.Murugesan and T.Thangaraj, whereas O.S. No.3812 of 1978 was filed by T.Murugesan, O.S. No.3813 of 1978 was filed by T.Thangaraj and O.S. No.3814 of 1978 was filed by Periasamy. All the three are brothers and they have purchased different bits comprised in the property bearing door Number 15/8, situate at Sir Thiagaraya Road, Pondy Bazaar, Madras. All these suits were filed on 14. 1978. The trial court dismissed the suits. So also the learned single Judge. Hence, these L.P.As. Thus, the two courts below have refused to grant a decree for specific performance.

2. In the light of the contentions urged, the points that arise for consideration in these appeals are: (i) whether the court below is justified in refusing to grant a decree for specific performance and (ii) whether any other relief could have been granted to the plaintiffs/ appellants.

.3. Point (i): In these appeals, the agreements are not disputed. Even according to the case of the plaintiffs, pursuant to the agreements dated 8. 1977, the defendant did apply for permission to alienate the properties concerned in the 4 agreements under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The application filed for permission was refused by the Authority under the Act. Therefore, the defendant sent a notice dated 110. 1977 to the plaintiffs stating that as the application for permission to sell had been rejected, it was not possible to perform the agreement, hence he cancelled the agreement and also returned the cheque for Rs. 1,600 in each case received as advance under the agreements. However, the plaintiffs did not accept the cheques and returned them to the defendant. These facts are not in dispute. The other grievance of the plaintiffs was that in the application filed for permission, the defendant did not mention all the facts correctly and also did not pursue the matter by way of appeal, therefore, there were no bona fides on his part in performing his part of the agreement. It may be pointed out here that both the courts below have negatived the contention of the plaintiffs and have held that there was no lack of bona fides on the part of the defendant that as per the agreement, he did apply for permission to alienate, but, the same was refused. Therefore, he was justified in cancelling the agreement.

4. We may refer to the various findings recorded by the learned single Judge. The following points were urged before the learned single Judge: (i) that as per the agreements, Exs.A-1 to A-4, the defendant was to obtain permission to sell from the Competent Authority, though as per law, no such permission was required to be obtained, the fact that the permission was not granted, did not disentitle the plaintiffs to seek specific performance, (ii) that the defendant wantonly made a misrepresentation and suppressed necessary facts, manouvered to get a rejection order, therefore it was not open to the defendant to take advantage of his own fault and on that basis, the court could not refuse a decree for specific performance, (iii) that the mere rejection of an agreement for permission to sell did not bring the agreements to end and the defendant would have taken steps to file the appeals and (iv) that whatever might be the position under the Act 34 of 1976 under the new Act 24 of 1978, no permission was necessary to sell the property and such refusal to grant permis-sion had no effect in the eye of law and the defendant was not justified in refusing to perform the agreements; that the finding of the trial court that the agreements were illegal and t