Hon’ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.—Heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Archit Mandhyan for the defendants-petitioners and Shri Rajesh Gupta, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents.

2. In these matters, the petitioners are assailing the orders dated 30.1.2018 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 2, Meerut, whereby he had decided the issue No. 9 in favour of plaintiffs-respondents and rejected the applications (97-C) moved by the defendant-petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint of the Original Suit Nos. 47 of 2007, 50 of 2007, 52 of 2007 & 53 of 2007 for non-disclosing any cause of action as well as the impugned order dated 4.5.2018 passed by the District Judge, Meerut, by which he has dismissed the Civil Revision Nos. 42 of 2018, 41 of 2018, 43 of 2018 and 44 of 2018.

3. For the sake of convenience, the facts of leading Matter under Article 227 No. 3978 of 2018 are being noted below :

4. Brief background of the case, as is reflected from the record in question, is that Ravi Shanker Sharma filed four Original Suit Nos. 47, 50, 52 and 53 all of the year 2007 for recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profits and for ejectment of the petitioners from open piece of land alleged to be in the tenancy of the petitioners. Late Abhay Singh (grand father of the first petitioner and father of the second petitioner) had taken the suit property on monthly rent of Rs. 7/- per month from Shiv Nath Sharma (grand father of the plaintiff-respondent) by registered lease deed dated 20.7.1947. After the death of Abhay Singh, the petitioners inherited the tenancy rights as joint tenants. The rent was due since 1st January, 1967 and the same was not paid despite various requests. The tenancy of the petitioners was terminated by registered notice dated 18.10.2006 but the petitioners in their reply refused to pay the rent and also denied the ownership of the plaintiffs with respect to the suit property.

5. Thereafter, the plaintiff-respondent filed the aforesaid suits for ejectment of the defendants-petitioners and for arrears of rent. The defendants-petitioners contested the suits and filed written statements denying and disputing the facts and stating, inter alia, that the suit property was taken on rent by registered lease deed dated 20.7.1947. However, the petitioners in their written statement stated that the suit land is part of Khasra No. 4899 area 3 bigha, whose Zamindar was late Shiv Nath Sharma (grand father of the plaintiff). He executed a registered lease deed dated 20.7.1947 with regard to 300 sq. yds. of land on annual rent of Rs. 90/- in favour of Abhay Singh. Towards east of the suit property, an area measuring 125 sq. yd. was also let out to late Abhai Singh by registered lease deed dated 4.9.1948 on payment of annual rent of Rs. 37.50. These leases were given for the purpose of construction of building. Abhai Singh transferred his interest in part of the demised land in favour of Smt. Raj Kumari by lease deed dated 29.5.1950 and Smt. Raj Kumari by registered deed dated 27.5.1959 transferred her rights in favour of Sardar Singh. After obtaining the land on lease Abhay Singh constructed a pucca building over the demised land. The proceedings for demarcation of land in question were initiated and by the order dated 30.12.1966, the predecessor in title of the defendants and their assignees were conferred Bhumidhari rights in the land. Since then, all the rights, title and interest of Sri Shiv Nath Sharma (grand father of the plaintiffs) came to an end. It was denied that there was any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Thereafter, the plaintiff-respondent No. 2 filed a replica claiming that he nor his predecessors had no knowledge of the order dated 30.12.1966. The suit land was not agricultural land and the defendants are the tenants and are liable to be evicted. Subsequently the defendants-peti