Rakesh Tiwari, J.;- Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. SCC Suit No. 94 of 1998 was filed by the plaintiffs respondents against the petitioner tenant on the ground that he is a defaulter in payment of rent of the shop in dispute which was taken by him at the rate of Rs.200/- per month. The petitioner tenant contested the suit by filing his written statement on 24th March, 1999 interalia that SCC Suit filed by the plaintiffs respondents was not covered by the provisions of of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings ( Regulation Of Letting, Rent And Eviction) Act, 1972 ( hereinafter referred to as the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) whereas the case of the landlords in the court below was that the building was not covered by U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. (paper no. 61-Ga) for rejection of the suit plaint, which was rejected by the Judge Small Causes Court, Meerut vide judgment and order dated 9.11.2004. Before the court below since one of the core questions involved in the suit regarding maintainability of the suit on the ground of applicability of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and the other core question of being question of defaulter in payment of rent, it has directed that issues raised by the petitioner will be heard at the time of final hearing after taking of the evidence. Aggrieved by the order aforesaid, Revision No. 137 of 2005 was filed by the petitioner challenging rejection of his application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. This application was objected upon by the landlords on the ground of being time barred. The Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Meerut rejected the revision of the petitioner as barred by time vide judgment and order dated 17.2.2011. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the orders impugned of both the courts below are illegal and are liable to be set aside. After hearing learned counsel for the parties I am of the considered opinion that admittedly the petitioner had filed his written statement on 24th March, 1999, therefore, he could have taken objection, if any, under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. prior to the filing of the written statement if no cause of action was disclosed in the plaint. After hearing learned counsel for the parties I am of the considered opinion that admittedly the petitioner had filed his written statement on 24th March, 1999, therefore, he could have taken objection, if any, under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. prior to the filing of the written statement if no cause of action was disclosed in the plaint. After having filed his written statement, the petitioner has moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. for rejection of the suit plaint and has kept the matter pending in the court below till today i.e. almost eight and a half years. From perusal of the plaint it appears that cause of action has been disclosed in the plaint, therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the courts below in rejecting the application (paper no.61-Ga) filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. Moreover, the court below has also observed that all the issues raised by the petitioner shall be considered at the time of hearing, hence no prejudice is caused to the petitioner. Since the matter is old one, in view of prayer (B) to issue any other writ order or direction deemed proper in the circumstances of the case and in view of decision rendered in Manju Devi (Smt) Vs. Additional District Judge VIII, Allahabad and others, ( 2007)(3) ARC-128, it is directed that the court below shall decide SCC Suit No. 94 of 1998 within a period of three months from today and when required day today hearing may be done. For the reasons stated above, the Court is not inclined to interfere in the orders impugned at this interlocutory stage in exercise of its extra ordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.