( 1 ) ALL the Civil Revision Petitions can be disposed of by a common Order, as the issue involved is one and the same.

( 2 ) THE revision petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suits and the State Bank of hyderabad, Visakhapatnam is the defendant. In these Civil Revision Petitions, we are only concerned with four floors in the building. These premises were leased out to state Bank of Hyderabad by the landlords under respective lease agreements. However, as earlier agreements expired fresh agreements were executed in 1996. During the subsistence of the extended lease agreements, the landlords filed four suits namely. O. S. Nos. 102 of 2003,103 of 2003, 104 of 2003 and 105 of 2004 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, visakhapatnam claiming damages and they are pending. Even though the renewed lease had expired, the bank continued to be in possession of the premises. But, however, the Bank issued quit notice expressing their intention to vacate the leased premises. In respect of three premises, it intended to vacate the premises on 31-12-2004, in respect of one Branch namely S. I. B. Branch, it intended to vacate by 30-11-2004. However, after issuing notice, the plaintiff filed I. A. Nos. 3265 of 2004 in O. S. No. 102 of 2003,i. A. No. 3267 of 2004 in O. S. No. 103 of 2003,i. A. No. 3269 of 2004 in O. S. No. 104 of 2003 and I. A. No. 3271 of 2004 in O. S. No. 105 of 2003 for temporary injunction restraining the bank from vacating the premises. The lower Court ordered notice and posted the matter for counter. At that point of time, the revisions were filed on the ground that since the lower Court has not passed any Order, in the meanwhile the bank is making arrangements to shift the premises and the I. As. would become infructuous, if no Orders are passed. This court while issuing notice granted temporary injunction as sought for. The bank has filed an application to vacate the Orders granted by this Court. Therefore, in view of the urgency of the mater, the Civil Revision petitions were heard finally.

( 3 ) HEARD the learned Senior Counsel mr. J. V. Suryanarayana Murthy, for the petitioners-plaintiffs and Mr. Addepally suryanarayana for the respondent-bank.

( 4 ) THE learned Senior Counsel submits that the I. As. were filed seeking temporary injunction restraining the bank from vacating the premises without complying the Orders of this Court passed in C. R. P. No. 2907 of 2004, dated: 2-7-2004 and if they are permitted to vacate the premises, it is very difficult for the landlord to recover the amount. Therefore, the trial Court ought to have granted the Order as prayed for. The leanred Senior Counsel would further submit that as per the Orders passed by this Court in Civil Revision Petition referred to above, a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs were due from the bank up to the date mentioned in the quit notice and without making payment, if the bank is allowed to shift the branch, it would cause irreparable loss to the petitioners-landlords and they would be driven to file civil suits, which would take considerable length of time. He, however, submits that the landlords have no objection if the entire amount is paid and the bank shifts to other premises.

( 5 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-bank mr. Addepally Suryanarayana submits that the landlords have been indulging in continued civil litigation right from take over of premises. He submits that the landlords and the Officers of the bank colluded together and entered into the Lease Deed with a view to enrich the landlords and therefore, suit in O. S. No. 87 of 2003 was filed by the bank for cancellation of the lease Deed and for recovery of the amounts and the said suit is pending. De hors the pendency of the suit filed by the bank, the landlords also filed above four suits claiming damages and in fact he submits that upto november, 2003, all the rents were paid and only dispute arose regarding the payment of rent from