Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) THESE seven appeals raise common questions and can conveniently be decided by a common judgment.
(2.) BUILDING No. 51/10, Naugarha, in the city of Kanpur, was owned by respondents Nos. 3 to 5. The various appellants in these seven appeals were tenants of different portions of this building. On 21st January, 1965, respondents Nos. 3 to 5, the landlords applied under Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, for permission to sue for the eviction of the tenants. After hearing the parties the Rent Control and Eviction Officer granted the requisite permission. The revisions filed by the tenants before the Commissioner as well as before the State Government failed and were dismissed. On 9th February, 1971, the landlords filed seven separate suits in the court of the City Munsif, Kanpur, for the ejectment of the appellants from the accommodations in their respective possession. Before the evidence was recorded in these suits the U. P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act. 1972, (Act No. 37 of 1972), came into force on 20th September, 1972. In virtue of Section 9 of this Act all the seven suits were transferred to the court of the Judge, Small Causes, Kanpur, who, after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, repelled the defence and decreed the seven suits. The tenants went up in revision before the District Judge, Kanpur. The District Judge, Kanpur, dismissed the revisions by a common judgment dated 2nd May, 1973. Aggrieved against these orders, the tenants came to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge did not find substance in any of the submissions raised in support of the writ petitions and dismissed them. Hence the present appeals.
(3.) APART from the principal question that Section 9 of the Act 37 of 1972 violated Article 14 of the Constitution, learned counsel for the appellants raised a couple of other points relating to the merits of their case. We may first dispose of these subsidiary points.;