Judgment :- The revision petitioners/defendants in all the CRPs have come forward with these revision as against the order of dismissal made in the Interlocutory Applications filed by it under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure to reject the respective plaint in the suits. 2. The petitioners are the defendants in the three suits and the respondent is the plaintiff in the said three suits. The plaintiff filed the suits for recovery of rental arrears from the defendants for the period from 3. 2002 to 22. 2005. There was lease agreements between the plaintiff and the defendants and as per the same, the defendants agreed to pay a sum of Rs.6,900/= per month towards the rent and a sum of Rs.3,100/= towards the amenities in total Rs.10,000/= for the period from 10. 1997 to 30.9.1998, thereafter for the period from 10. 1998 to 30.9.2000 Rs.8,300/= per month towards the rent and Rs.3,700/= p.m., towards the amenities in total Rs.12,000/= p.m., and for the period from 10. 2000 to 30.9.2001 Rs.10,000/= p.m., towards the rent and Rs.4,400/= p.m., towards the amenities, in total Rs.14,400/= p.m., and the defendants paid Rs.1,00,000/= as interest free security deposit to the plaintiff. 3. According to the plaintiff, since the defendants defaulted in payment of rents, filed RCOPs on the ground of willful default and the learned Rent Controller allowed the petitions after contest, and aggrieved of the same the defendants preferred RCA and also field Miscellaneous Petitions in the respective RCAs for stay. Since stay was refused, they filed CRPs against the orders passed in the Miscellaneous Petitions, and this Court ordered to pay 50% of the rental arrears by way of demand draft to the plaintiff and the CRPs are still pending before this court. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff also filed the suits for recovery of rental arrears from the defendants. According to the defendants, since the issue has not reached finality and the CRPs are pending before this court, therefore there is no cause of action for the suits and therefore the plaints instituted by the plaintiff, after eviction ordered by the Rent Controller are liable to be rejected in limine. In fact, the defendants admitted the lease agreement entered by them. In fact, the defendants admitted the lease agreement entered by them. But it is contended by the defendants that with the consent of the plaintiff, they carried out the renovation work of the property which was in a dilapidated condition by spending a sum of Rs.75,00,000/= and therefore, the plaintiff, contrary to the terms of the agreement agreed to receive the same rent for the period from 1997 to 1998 for the next three years upto the year 2000. 4. But, it is the case of the plaintiff that the suits have been filed not based on the eviction order passed in the respective RCOPs, but seeking arrears of rents based on the lease agreements entered between the parties and hence the suits cannot be rejected. The main contention of the defendants is that the Rent Control Proceedings has not reached its finality and hence there is no cause of action to the suits. But there is no legal bar to that effect. As rightly observed by the trial court, if the RCOPs were filed with regard to fixing of fair rent and orders were passed thereon, based on such fair rents fixation if the plaintiff filed the suits for recovery of rental arrears, the defendants may say that they preferred appeal or CRP against such fixation of fair rents and such orders did not reach finality. But in this case, the plaintiff seeking arrears of rent based on the lease agreements entered between both of them. Though the plaintiff filed applications under Section 11(4) of the Rent Control Act before the Rent Control Appellate Authority in the pending RCAs, the defendants have not deposited the rents, the only option for the plaintiff is to file the suits for recovery of arrears of rents. Further the, suits are based on the lease agreements. Though the plaintiff stated in the plaints that the suit is not barred by limitation in view of the order passed in the RCOPs, the plaintiff claimed rents for three years from the date of suits and for prior period she did not claim the rents stating that it was barred by limitation. Therefore, even the suits cannot be held to be barred by limitation based on the orders passed in the RCOPs and the plaintiff has sufficient cause of action to file the suits. Therefore, even the suits cannot be held to be barred by limitation based on the orders passed in the RCOPs and the plaintiff has sufficient cause of action to file the suits. Therefore, there is no ground available to reject the plaints in the respective suits and these Revisions are liable to be dismissed. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the learned Trial Judge. 5. In the result, all the three CRPs are dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. No costs.