A tenant's rights and obligations must be established with clear evidence, particularly when counterclaims involve alleged oral agreements for sale.

These two appeals are listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the plaintiff filed a suit seeking the relief of possession from the defendant, wherein it is contended that the defendant is in possession of plaint ‘A’ schedule property as per the rent bond dated 10.11.1967 and the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits and the said tenancy is validly terminated. On the other hand, the defendant appeared and made the counter claim in O.S.No.14/2009 that the plaintiff and his brothers had agreed to sell the written statement ‘A’ schedule property for an amount of Rs.40,000/- on 29.04.2007 by receiving an advance of Rs.5,000/-. It is contended that the defendant was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract agreement to repay the balance amount. The Trial Court having taken note of the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues as to whether the defendant is a tenant, whether the tenancy was validly terminated and is there any sale transaction as contended by the defendant and whether the defendant was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. The plaintiff in order to prove his case examined the GPA holder as P.W.1 and other two witnesses as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and examined himself as P.W.4 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 10. The defendant got examined his son as D.W.1 by giving power of attorney and examined two witnesses as D.W.2 and D.W.3 and got marked the documents at Exs.D.1 to 31.

3. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative in coming to the conclusion that the defendant was a tenant and comes to the conclusion that the counter claim made by the defendant has not been proved and hence decreed the suit for recovery of possession against the defendant and also comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.500/- from October 2009 till the date of suit. The Trial Court also directed to handover the possession of schedule premises to the plaintiff within three months from the date of the order and also ordered to pay further future mesne profits at the rate of Rs.500/- per month.

4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the Trial Court, R.A.No.25/2013 and R.A.No.26/2013 are filed by the defendant for granting of the relief as sought in the plaint and also dismissal of the counter claim. Both the appeals are dismissed on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the First Appellate Court.

Aggrieved by the same, these two second appeals are filed before this Court.

5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in both the appeals is that both the Courts have committed an error in not accepting the case of the appellant.

Though it was an oral agreement, even the brother of the plaintiff also supported the case of the defendant with regard to the oral agreement is concerned. Inspite of an amount of Rs.5,000/- was received as advance, the same was also not considered by both the Courts. The learned counsel contend that when the First Appellate Court formulated the point while considering the appeal with regard to payment of Rs.5,000/- is concerned, erroneously answered the point for consideration in the negative. The learned counsel contend that both the Courts have failed to consider the material on record and appreciate the same in proper perspective and committed an error in casting the burden on the defendant to disprove Ex.P.6 i.e., rent bond by referring it to the handwriting expert and both the Courts have traversed beyond the pleadings and issues framed in the suit. The learned counsel contend that when the Trial Court has given the finding that the brother of the plaintiff has not been made as a party for the relief of speci