B.C. Kandpal, J. - (1.)Since the controversy involved in these writ petition is similar, as landlord is the same and the amount of arrear of rent etc. is the similar, hence these petitions are being decided together by this common judgment.
(2.)The writ petition no. 357 of 2007 arise out of judgment and order dated 5.5.2006 in S.C.C. Revision No. 13 of 2005, writ petition No. 354 of 2007 arise out of judgment and order dated 5.5.2006 in S.C.C. revision no. 15 of 2005, writ petition no. 355 of 2007 arise out of judgment and order dated 5.5.2006 in S.C.C. revision no. 16 of 2005 and writ petition no. 356 of 2007 arise out of judgment and order dated 5.5.2006 in S.C.C. revision no. 14 of2005.
(3.)Record reveals that Prakash Kumar Verma, respondent/plaintiff is the landlord of defendants/respondents. He served notices to them for recovery of arrear of rent, ejectment and determined their tenancy and thereafter filed S.C.C. suits against them. The defendants/tenants contested the suit and denied any default in payment of rent to the plaintiff/landlord. The learned J.S.C.C. framed issues in the suits, took evidence of the parties and after going through the evidence, dismissed the suits. Against the orders of dismissal of the suits, the landlord filed S.C.C. revisions before the District Judge, who vide impugned orders dated 5.5.2006 allowed the revisions and remanded the cases to the Judge, Small Cause Court.
;