These Revision Petitions have been filed by the plaintiff against the common order, dated 8-9-2008 in I.A. Nos. 1052, 1051 and 1053 of 2008 on the file of the II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. Since all the Revision Petitions are filed by the same parties against the common order, they are clubbed and this common order is passed.

3. I.A. No. 1051 of 2008 was filed by the defendant under Section 151 of C.P.C. to reopen the suit to receive the petition filed by the defendant to comply the orders in I.A. No. 1030 of 2007. I.A. No. 1052 of 2008 was filed by the defendant to restore the strike off defence of the defendant and to permit him to adduce evidence for proper adjudication in the suit. I.A. No. 1053 of 2008 was filed by the defendant under Section 148 of C.P.C. to enlarge time by 265 days in complying the order in I.A. No. 1030 of 2007, dated 16-11-2007.

4. The common averments of the defendant in all the Applications are briefly as follows:

The plaintiff filed the suit for eviction against the defendant. While so, a conditional order was passed in I.A. No. 1030 of 2007 against the defendant to pay arrears of rent, which was not complied. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 221 of 2008 to strike off the defence of the defendant in the suit and the same was allowed. Subsequently, the defendant filed I.A. No. 824 of 2008 to permit him to deposit admitted rents from June, 2006 and that Application was allowed. The defendant filed I.A. No. 937 of 2008 to enlarge the time to comply the conditional order passed in I.A. No. 1030 of 2007 and the same was dismissed with an observation that as the defendant failed to comply the order passed in I.A. No. 824 of 2008 for non-depositing the admitted rents. Unless the defence of the defendant is restored, he will not be able to present the true facts and the delay was already explained in I.A. No. 937 of 2008. Hence, these petitions for the reliefs as mentioned above.

5. A common counter was filed by the respondent-plaintiff in all the petitions denying the allegations made in the petition and contended that the petitions are not maintainable, as they are barred by res judicata. As the present Applications are repeating the same facts of the earlier Applications, which were dismissed, they cannot be entertained as it amounts to abuse of process of law and miscarriage of justice. The defendant is enjoying the suit premises without paying any rent, which will cause great prejudice to the plaintiff. The earlier Application covered by I.A. No. 1030 of 2007 went upto supreme Court and the petitioner lost in the courts. Again he filed the present Applications for the same reliefs which were already rejected previously, therefore, the Applications are liable to be dismissed.

6. The lower Court, after considering the arguments advanced by both parties, allowed the Applications with a condition that the defendant shall deposit all the arrears of rent from March, 2005 till date @ Rs.5,500/per month into the Court on or before next hearing date, falling which the petitions stand dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff preferred the present Revision Petitions.

7. The plaintiff filed the suit for eviction of the respondent. There is no dispute that the plaintiff is the owner of the property and it was let out to one Jaganmohan Rao in the year 2000 when he represented that he is a film producer and wants to set up his production office at the petition schedule property on a monthly rent of Rs.5,500/- per month. He died in an accident in the year 2002. Thereafter, the defendant is claiming to be the partner of the said Jaganmohan Rao and continued to run the production office at the petition schedule property. The petitioner was made to believe the representation of the defendant and allowed to continue his office and received the rents. The allegations against the defendant are that he was irregular in payment of rents. It is contended that one Sivakumar R