B VEERAPPA, J.

1. All these writ petitions are filed by the defendant against the Order dated 17th January, 2019 on I.A.5/2018 rejecting the application to recall the order dated 10.8.2018 and directing the defendant to pay the Court fee as directed on 3rd August, 2017; and the Order dated 17th January, 2019 on I.A.6/2018 allowing the application to recall the order dated 10th August, 2018 in so far as it pertains to hearing of additional issue No.1 regarding maintainability of the suits as a preliminary issue in O.S.Nos. 3997/2012 and connected suits (O.S.Nos. 5003/2012, 5005/2012, 5432/2012, 5433/2012, 5434/2012, 5435/2012 and 5458/2012).

I - FACTS OF THE CASE

2. The respondents, who are plaintiffs filed suits for ejectment against the present petitioner-defendant for vacating and delivering vacant physical possession of the suit "B" schedule property to them and to direct the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- per month at such rate which the Court is pleased to determine, as damages, mesne profits to them from the date of the suits till the defendant hands over the vacant physical possession of the schedule 'B' property to the plaintiffs and to determine the mesne profits payable by the defendant under Order XX Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the sum decreed contending that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit schedule properties and they had executed the Lease Deed on 3.3.1979 in favour of the defendant whereunder the property described in the 'A' schedule property was leased to the defendant and the same was registered in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Gandhinagar, Bangalore. It was their further contention that the said lease expired long back as there was no renewal and hence the defendant is in illegal occupation of the schedule 'A'. The plaintiffs and the other legal heirs of late Sri L.H. Eshwara Murthy partitioned 'A' schedule property amongst themselves as per the final decree for partition which was registered on 21.9.2007. A portion of the 'A' schedule property which is morefully described in Schedule 'B' herein had fallen to the share of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs thus became the absolute owners of the 'B' schedule property.

3. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the defendant was paying a sum of Rs.2,450/- per month till February, 2009 for the schedule 'A' property and he was paying the monthly rent by issuing two cheques for a sum of Rs.1,225/- each to the plaintiff's two brothers viz., B.E. Ramakrishna and B.E. Ramachandra and the rents upto February, 2009 were received by plaintiff, her brother, her sister and her mother. It is further contended that the plaintiffs required the said 'B' schedule property for bonafide use and occupation as the private road is leading to their respective properties in the schedule 'A' property. The plaintiffs had terminated the lease after the expiry of the Lease Deed by issuing notice on 22.9.2010 to the defendant. It is further contended that the defendant had not sent reply to the plaintiffs' notice. The plaintiffs further submitted that they continued their occupation of the schedule 'B' property subsequent to the termination of the lease unlawfully and therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the mesne profits to the plaintiffs for the wrongful use and occupation of the suit schedule 'B' property which is situated in the prime locality of Bangalore City. Therefore, they contended that the defendant is liable to pay the mesne profit to them at the rate of Rs.1,40,000/- per month or at such rate as the Court determines from the date of the suit till the defendant hands over vacant possession of the schedule 'B' property to them.

4. It is further contended that inspite of notice issued to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule 'B' property, the defendant failed to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the schedule 'B' property and continued to remain in wrongful