G. BIKSHAPATHY, J. ( 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. 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 November, 2003 onwards. The bank is, however, ready and willing to deposit the amount as directed by this Court duly making adjustment of the amount already available with the plaintiff-landlords. The bank is, however, ready and willing to deposit the amount as directed by this Court duly making adjustment of the amount already available with the plaintiff-landlords. But, he submits that the very Civil Revision petitions are not maintainable as the lower court did not pass any Orders in the I. As. filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs and therefore, the Civil Revision Petitions have to be dismissed at the threshold as they are not maintainable in view of the decision of this court in C. M. A. No. 3482 of 2003, dated 29-10-2003. He also further submits that in respect of the pending suit, filed by the bank i. A. No. 2770 of 2003 was filed to permit the bank to deposit the rents in the pending suit o. S. No. 87 of 2003. The lower Court passed on Order in the said I. A. directing the bank to deposit the lease amounts as per the renewed Lease Deed and the landlords were permitted to withdraw a portion of the amount and the rest of the amount was directed to be kept in the suit deposit. Five such Orders were passed in respect of the five premises. Aggrieved by the said Order, the bank filed C. R. P. No. 2970 of 2003 and after hearing the parties, this Court disposed of the Civil Revision Petition and modified the Order of trial Court in so far as the amount to be kept in deposit is concerned and it was held that the bank need not deposit all the amounts as directed by the lower Court and that it shall deposit only such amount of rents which were permitted to be withdrawn by the petitioners-landlords as per the Orders of the lower Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition was disposed of on 2-7-2004. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the matter was carried before the Supreme Court in S. L. P. and the Supreme Court also dismissed the s. L. P. filed by the landlord. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition was disposed of on 2-7-2004. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the matter was carried before the Supreme Court in S. L. P. and the Supreme Court also dismissed the s. L. P. filed by the landlord. Even on merits also, the learned counsel would submit that even if the amount is calculated till the date of vacation as notified in the quit notice and after taking into consideration the T. D. S. and the amounts already paid in between and also taking into consideration the deposit amount lying with the landlords, the amount is very negligible and the bank is prepared to deposit the said amount also. Thus he submits that there are no merits in the revisions and they are liable to be dismissed. ( 6 ) BEFORE considering the merits of the case, it is necessary to consider the issue relating to the maintainability of the Civil revision Petitions. ( 7 ) IT is not in dispute that the suits are pending before the lower Court, wherein the damages were calmed by the landlords. The principal contention of the learned Senior counsel is that without deposit of the amounts as directed by this Court in the Civil revision Petition referred to above, the Bank is trying to shift to the new premises and that would cause irreparable loss and in order to render substantial justice, this Court is always empowered under Article 227 of constitution of India to pass appropriate orders. The petitioners-landlords had made out a strong prima facie case in their favour and if that was not granted by the lower court, it is always open for this Court sitting under Article 227 of Constitution of India to grant such a relief and does not preclude this court from exercising such power under extraordinary circumstances. ( 8 ) IT is one thing to say that this Court is totally precluded from interfering with the orders of the lower Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India and it is another thing to say that in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, it is always open for this court to interfere and pass appropriate orders. ( 8 ) IT is one thing to say that this Court is totally precluded from interfering with the orders of the lower Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India and it is another thing to say that in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, it is always open for this court to interfere and pass appropriate orders. Thought the learned counsel for the bank relied on the judgment of this Court to the effect that inasmuch as no Orders were passed by the lower Court, it is not appropriate for this Court to entertain Civil revision Petition, but it has to be noted that when irreparable loss is caused on account of non-passing of the Orders and if the circumstances require that Order one way or the other has to be passed and if the same has not been passed, it cannot be said that this Court is precluded from exercising power under Article 227 of Constitution of india. But, however, each case depends on its own facts and circumstances and there cannot be any straightjacket formula for invoking Art. 227 of Constitution of India. Admittedly, this Court exercises the supervisory jurisdiction over the subordinate courts and it can interfere, in cases where the lower Court exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it or in excess of the jurisdiction vested in it or failure to exercise the jurisdiction. Thus, if the Court finds that the lower Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction at appropriate and relevant time, it is always open for this Court to interfere and pass necessary Orders in the interest of justice. But, in the instant case, the dates notified in the quit notice had not expired; in three cases, the date is expiring on 30-12-2004 and one case on 30-11-2004 and probably for this reason, the lower Court issued notice and for counter. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that there was sufficient time for lower Court to decide the matter even before the expiry of dates in respective quit notices. In such circumstances, I find that no irreparable loss can be said to be caused to the landlords and as such I find revisions are not maintainable and they are premature. In such circumstances, I find that no irreparable loss can be said to be caused to the landlords and as such I find revisions are not maintainable and they are premature. ( 9 ) BUT, however, the learned counsel for the bank submits that they are agreeable to settle all the dues, which are payable to the landlords and restraining them from shifting to new premises is wholly uncalled for. He further submits that the landlords are liable to refund the advance already given to them at the time of execution of Lease Deed and therefore, that amount has to be deducted from out of the amount due to the landlords. Taking that into consideration, the bank will be liable to pay about more than Rs. 2 lakhs and they will be willing to deposit the same. But, on the other hand, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the landlords submit that they are entitled for a sum of rs. 15,50,000/- towards the rental dues and rs. 6,60,000/- towards the Generator charges and Rs. 3,90,000/- towards the maintenance charges upto the date of vacation and out of this they have deposited only Rs. 11,60,000/- and the balance has to be paid to them and they will not have any objection, for vacating the premises by the bank. I am not inclined to decide the actual quantum of the dues as the matters are pending before the trial Court, and it is for them to make appropriate applications. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the adjustment of advance deposit at this juncture would not arise as it is subject to recovery of some deficiencies at the time of handing and taking over the premises. But, keeping in view the circumstances of the case and the fact that the bank fairly stated before this Court that they are willing to settle the amounts due in accordance with the terms of the lease, I find, in the best interest of the parties, the bank shall make ad hoc deposit of Rs. 1. 50 lakhs in each of four suits referred to above before the lower Court within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, and the same shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the landlords subject to the final adjudication of the suits. 1. 50 lakhs in each of four suits referred to above before the lower Court within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, and the same shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the landlords subject to the final adjudication of the suits. This Court has already permitted the bank, SIB Branch to be shifted and on deposit of the aforesaid amounts, the bank may be permitted to shift their branches, but, however, the date of vacation shall be reckoned as mentioned in the respective quit notices. The lower Court shall dispose of the suit expeditiously. ( 10 ) SUBJECT to the above directions, the civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs.