( 1 ) THESE three petitions arise out of three suits instituted in the Court of the Munsiff, Virajet, by the respondent who happens to be the landlord of the three petitioners for recovery of possession of the respective premises let out to each of the petitioners in these petitions and for recovery of arrears of rent and other reliefs. All the three suits were instituted on 17-6-1968. The respondent alleged in his plaints presented in the three suits that the petitioners were his tenants who had committed default in the payment of rent and that he had duly terminated their tenancies by issue of proper notices to quit as provided under the Transfer of Property act. The petitioners in their written satement admitted that they were tenants under the respondent, but raised certain pleas with regard to the claim made by the respondent in the suits and prayed that the suits be dismissed. After the written statements were filed in all the suits, the court below framed issues and posted the cases for trial. During the pendency of the suits in the Court below, the provisions of Parts IV and v of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the act) were made applicable to the area in which the premises leased out to the petitioners were situate by a notification bearing No. SO. 869 dated 24-9-1969 issued by the Government of Mysore in exercise of its powers under sub-sec. (5) of S. 2 of the Act. Part IV of the Act deals with provisions enabling a tenant to make deposit of rent into Court and Part V of the Act relates to provisions in respect of control of eviction of tenants and obligations of landlords. S. 21 of the Act which is to be found in part V reads:"21. Protection of tenants against eviction.- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any Court or other authority in favour of the landlord against the tenant. "

( 2 ) THE rest of the section sets out the grounds on which alone a tenant could be evicted from a premises. After Parts IV and V of the Act were brought into force, the petitioners filed applications before the lower Court under or. VI, R. 17 CPC. for amending their written statements by raising an additional plea regarding the jurisdiction of the Court to proceed with the suits on the coming into force of Parts IV and V of the Act in the area. The said applications having been allowed, the Court framed, an additional issue in each of the three suits as follows: "whether the Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit for reasons stated in para 10 of the written statement? "

( 3 ) APPARENTLY what the Court meant by framing the above issue was whether the Court had on the coming into force of Parts IV and V of the Act jurisdiction to continue to try the suits which had already been instituted. In fact no question of territorial jurisdiction arose for consideration. After hearing the parties, the lower Court passed orders holding that the suits for recovery of possession instituted by the landlord against the tenants, and which were pending on the date on which Parts IV ant V of the Act came into force, could be proceeded with as if Parts IV and V of the Act had not come into force and that the notification had no retrospective effect. Aggrieved by the above finding given on the additional issue which was framed by the Court below regarding its jurisdiction, the petitioners have filed these revision petitions under S. 115 of the CPC. When these cases came up before B. M. Kalagate, J. he ordered that these cases be heard by a Division Bench since they involved substantial question of law and that is how they are now before us.

( 4 ) THE first question to be decided is whether these petitions are maintainable under S. 115 CPC. As already stated these petitions are directed against a finding on one of the issues framed in the suits. It is not disputed that an