M. Duraiswamy, J.

1. A.S. No. 263 of 2003 arises against the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 10770 of 1996 on the file of the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The plaintiff is the appellant and the respondents were the defendants in the suit. The plaintiff filed the Original Suit before this Court in C.S. No. 1431 of 1993, which was subsequently transferred to the file of the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and renumbered as O.S. No. 10770 of 1996 for the relief of specific performance and permanent injunction.

2. C.R.P.(NPD). No. 616 of 2003 arises against the judgment and decree passed in R.C.A. No. 1376 of 1996 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority/VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, confirming the order passed in R.C.O.P. No. 1816 of 1993 on the file of the Rent Controller/XI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. The tenants are the petitioners and the respondent is the landlord. The respondent/landlord filed R.C.O.P. No. 1816 of 1993 for eviction on the ground of willful default.

3. Since in both the matters the properties are one and the same and the disputes are between the same parties, both the matters are disposed of by this common judgment.

4. The brief case of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 10770 of 1996 is as follows:

"(i) According to the plaintiff, the suit property belongs to the 1st defendant and on 06.03.1991, the 1st defendant leased out the suit property to the plaintiff and received several amounts towards advance. On 18.08.1991, the 1st defendant agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff and executed a Sale Agreement fixing the Sale Consideration at Rs. 7,85,000/- and he received a sum of Rs. 61,000/- as advance. The 1st defendant agreed to adjust the several amounts in the advance. After the Sale Agreement, the plaintiff made improvements in the suit property. According to the plaintiff, the suit property was mortgaged in favour of the 2nd defendant Bank. On 06.07.1992, the plaintiff also wrote a letter to the 2nd defendant Bank. The 1st defendant filed a Original Petition in R.C.O.P. No. 1816 of 1993 against the plaintiff. Since the 1st defendant failed to execute the Sale Deed, the plaintiff has filed the suit.

(ii) According to the plaintiff, the suit Agreement was produced as Document No. 1 along with the plaint. The said Agreement was signed by the 1st defendant. The plaintiff has been paying the monthly rents regularly. The 1st defendant obtained an order of eviction in R.C.O.P. No. 1816 of 1993, against which the plaintiff has filed an appeal in R.C.A. No. 1376 of 1996 and obtained an order of interim stay in the appeal. The plaintiff spent a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- for improving the property. In these circumstances, the plaintiff filed the suit."

5. The brief case of the 1st defendant is as follows:

"According to the 1st defendant, the alleged Agreement dated 18.08.1991 is a fabricated document. The Agreement is not binding on the 1st defendant. The suit property belongs to him and the plaintiff is a tenant in respect of the said property. Since the plaintiff defaulted in paying the monthly rents, he filed R.C.O.P. No. 1816 of 1993. The 1st defendant's father obtained loan from the 2nd defendant Bank and the 1st defendant was the Guarantor. The plaintiff has not made any improvement in the suit property. The plaintiff promised to advance loan for the discharge of the Bank loan. However, he has not advanced any money and on the contrary, he executed the forged document. On a perusal of the document, it could be seen that it is a forged document. The plaintiff gave loans to the 1st defendant. However, there was no Agreement to sell the property to the plaintiff. Suppressing the real facts, the plaintiff has filed the suit. In these circumstances, the 1st defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit."

6. Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and 8 documents, Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On the side of the de