( 1 ) ). These four appeals arise out of a common judgment and four separate decrees passed in Special Civil Suit No. 626 of 1984, 627 of 1984. 628 of 1984 and 629 of 1984 respectively by the learned Judge (Court No. 4, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad) whereby the learned Judge has dismissed all the four suits without, however, any order as to the costs of the parties.

( 2 ) ). The aforesaid four suits were filed by different plaintiffs (one in each suit) against the same defendant, viz. , M/s. Nanikram Sobhraj Mills Pvt. Ltd. , claiming possession of the demised property with mesne pvofits, etc. The four plaintiffs are the members of the same family and there is no dispute about the fact that their predecessor-in-title bad, by a lease deed (Ex. 35) dated 8-5-1938 and a supplementary lease deed (Ex. 36) dated 15-12-1939, leased out to the defendant a large piece and parcel of land, with some buildings standing thereon, for use by the lessee "for silk, rayon and cotton weaving, dyeing and printing factory". By the supplementary lease deed (Ex. 36), only some additional adjoining land was leased out for additional rent to the defendant, but, the purpose of the lease and the other conditions and terms of the lease continued to be the same as in the original lease deed (Ex. 35) dated 8-5-1938. The properties left by the predecassor-in-title of the four plaintiffs were partitioned amongst the plaintiffs and each plaintiff got a particular portion out of the demised property and it was, therefore, that each plaintiff separately filed one suit for possession of the portion which had fallen to his or her share. Possession of the demised property was claimed on the ground of breach of some conditions and arrears of rent. We are, however, not concerned with the grounds on which possession was sought from the defendants. The point to be noted is that the suits for recovering possession from the defendant-lessee were filed on the basis that the Bombay Rents, hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (i. e. the Rent Act) was not applicable to the facts of the cases. There is no dispute about the position that if the tenancy was governed by the provisions of the Rent Act, the suits ought to have been filed in the Court of Small Causes, Abmedabad, and that the City Civil Court will have no jurisdiction to entertain, hear and decide the suits. Briefly, the contention on behalf of the plaintiffs-landlords was that the lease was created for manufacturing purpose and, therefore, the provisions of Sec. 6 (1) of the Rent Act did not apply to the case and hence the City civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suits.

( 3 ) ). The suits were resisted by the defendant, inter alia, on the ground that the provisions of the Rent Act did govern the suits and regular Civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suits since Sec. 6 (1) of the Rent act squarely applied to these suits and the suits having not been filed in the Court of Small Causes, Ahmedabad, having exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the suits under the Rant Act, the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the suits and must dismiss them.

( 4 ) ). The learned City Civil Judge raised an issue relating to the jurisdiction of his Court arising from the aforesaid controversy between the parties and having heard that issue as preliminary issue, has recorded a clear finding that the tenancy in question was governed by the provisions of the Rent Act and Sec. 6 (1) of the Rent Act applies to the facts of the case and, therefore, it was only the special Court constituted under the Rent act, i. e. Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad which had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suits. It is in consequence of this finding recorded by the learned Judge that he has held that his Court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the suits and he has accordingly dismissed the suits.

( 5 ) ). The aforesaid finding of the learned Judge was strenuously contested before this Court by the l