1. The 3 revisions are arisen against the dismissal orders of the 3 applications dated 22.06.2016 viz., I.A.No.307 of 2015 in O.S.No.1815 of 2015; I.A.No.308 of 2015 in O.S.No.1816 of 2015 and I.A.No.309 of 2015 in O.S.No.1817 of 2015, passed by the learned VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. The factual matrix necessary in all the three matters common in relation to the 3 mulgies in the 3 suits filed for eviction of the respondents/tenants by the sole plaintiff saying as absolute owner and the defendants are tenants for said premises which are out of the premises bearing Nos.21-2-131/7 to 9 in the ground + 2 floors of Charkaman, Charminar Area, Hyderabad for the registered lease deeds bearing document Nos.197/2010 dated 10.02.2010, 196/2010 dated 10.02.2010 and 372/2010 dated 19.03.2010 with respective rents of Rs.7,500/- per month each with Rs.500/- enhancement every year for 21 years ending by 31.12.2030 with security deposit of Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively, from the alleged default in payment of rents by giving notice terminating the respective tenancy and the contest of the defendants in respective written statements opposing the 3 suits is while saying plaintiff represented as owner to the defendants of the premises respectively in possession saying he purchased from Smt. Sharbadi Bhai under registered sale deeds dated 05.12.1980 and 04.06.1981 and offered to lease out, the defendants agreed and accordingly obtained respective registered leases by payment of refundable security deposit with stipulation of rent and provision for every year increase and are continuing as tenants by paying rents. However the defendants received notice dated 05.02.2015 through the advocate of Anil Kumar S/o. Brijmohan, informing that the plaintiff filed O.S.No.1110/1981 for declaration of title and perpetual injunction on the basis of sale deed executed by Sarbadi Bhai that was decreed and said Anil Kumar filed CCCA.No.1/1992 that was allowed reversing the decree in the suit on 24.06.1986 and against which the plaintiff preferred LPA.No.166/1998 that was ended in dismissal and plaintiff preferred special leave to appeal in SLP.No.16623 of 2014 in the Supreme Court that was also dismissed and the suit No.1110/1981 of plaintiff thereby stands dismissed declaring the sale in favour of the plaintiff herein as null and void and tenancy between plaintiff and defendant thereby becomes null and void since Anil Kumar declared by Court of law as absolute owner and therefrom called upon to pay rent to Anil Kumar, else to face eviction for which they issued reply and plaintiff herein also having issued reply is threatening the defendants to evict for non-payment of rents to him though they committed no breach of lease but for by virtue of the judgments and notice of Anil Kumar.

3. From the above pleadings of the pending suits, the 3 applications covered by the impugned orders were filed for direction to the defendants/respondents respectively to pay Rs.10,000/- per month each towards arrears of rent for the month of March 2015 and continue to pay the same from April 2015 till disposal of the respective three suits invoking Order 15-A CPC for the respective premises.

4. The observations of the Court below under the impugned 3 orders read in almost similar and particularly from Paras 6 & 7 read that, though the petitioner/plaintiff claims the respondents/defendants abruptly stopped payment from March 2015 and their defence thereby is liable to be struck off; the contention of the defendants/respondents is that after disposal of the SLP before the Supreme Court, there is no jural relationship between them and Sharbadi Bhai is his original landlord. The observation further therefrom that there are several disputes between the parties that went up to the Supreme Court and both parties not filed details of the orders passed by the Court. As the main controversy is with regard to jural relationship, it is