SATISH CHANDRA, J. :- 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. It was urged that the permission granted to the landlords under Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act was vitiated by fraud practised by the landlords upon the authorities. The submission was that the landlords sought permission on the ground that they needed the premises for their personal residence, that during the pendency of the proceedings the landlords acquired a bungalow at 35, Cariappa Road, Cantonment Road, Kanpur, which amply satisfied their need for personal residence, that this fact was concealed from the Rent Control Authorities, and that thus the landlords practised fraud upon the authorities.

6. From the evidence it is apparent that the bungalow in question was purchased by the mother and aunt of the respondents-landlords. The landlords not having bought any accommodation, it cannot be said that they practised fraud upon the authorities by not bringing this fact to their notice. Further, a perusal of the orders passed by the authorities below shows that the predominant ground upon which permission was granted was that the building in dispute was in a highly dilapidated condition and the landlords' case that it required reconstruction was true. The landlords' case that they would, after reconstruction of the building, utilise its first floor for residence and the ground floor for shops for business was accepted. There is no evidence that the landlords had not made good this assurance or that after reconstruction the premises in dispute have not been utilised as mentioned in the application for permission. There is hence no substance in the plea that the landlords obtained the requisite permission by practising fraud.

7. In the next place it was urged that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to execution of decrees against immovable property are not applicable to small cause courts, that in the present suit the plaintiffs prayed for a decree for ejectment from immovable property,