The judgment of the Court was as follows :-

Mitra, J.: In all these Civil Revision cases a common question of law has arisen. The contention on behalf of the petitioners is that Chapter VIII of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act of 1882 violates the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. This is the chapter on "Distresses". We shall deal with the relevant provisions of this chapter at the appropriate time. It is common case that a landlord within the limits of the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of this Court can either levy 'distress' or proceed by way of a suit in the Presidency Small Cause Court provided that the rent sought to be recovered is not for more than twelve months. The argument on behalf of the petitioners is that the two choices available to a landlord are discriminatory. The landlord at his sole discretion may proceed under Chapter VIII against one tenant and may file a suit against another tenant. In other words, the selection lies wholly with the landlord as to whether he would file a suit or levy a 'distress'. Secondly, the Act does not prescribe or give any guidance as to how and when the option or selection is to be exercised. Thirdly, the