JUDGMENT M.P. Saxena, J. - This is a tenant's petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. Briefly, stated the facts, giving rise to this writ petition are that the opposite party No. 2 run an Eye Hospital in the Civil Lines, Bareilly. Within the premises of its hospital certain shops were constructed. They were completed by the year 1963. In their construction the cost was paid by the tenants and the same was treated as an advance to the opposite party No. 2 who entered into an agreement with the tenants to that effect. The petitioner's father late Sri Nabi Mohammed Khan was the tenant of shop No. 10. After sometime the petitioner No. 2 pressed for enhancement of rent. Some of the tenants yielded to the request but the petitioner's father refused to pay higher rent. Several other tenants also did not agree to it, with the result that the opposite party No. 2 filed a number of suits against these tenants including the father of the petitioner. The suit against the petitioner's father was numbered as suit No. 20 of 1972 in the court of Judge Small Causes. One of the suits was numbered as 373 of 1972. All these suits were connected and suit No. 373 of 1972 was made the leading case. 3. During the pendency of Suit No. 20 of 1972 petitioner's father died and his heirs were substituted. The U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act 1972 hereinafter referred to as the Act came into force affecting amendment in the Small Causes Court Act, Civil Procedure Court Bengal, Agra, Assam Civil Courts Act and the U.P. Urban Buildings Regulations of Letting of Rent and Eviction Act 1972. Section 9 was enacted as a transitory provision and provided that suits of the nature referred to in the proviso to section (1) and sub section (2) of section 25 of the Bengal, Agra, Assam Civil Courts Act or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 15 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act instituted before the date of commencement of the Civil Laws Amendment Act in any court other than the court of Small Causes not being a suit in which the recording or oral evidence for any party has commenced or concluded before the said date, shall stand transferred to the Small Causes Court and shall be decided by the Court. The petitioner moved an application before the Small Causes court to the effect that the said amendment was ultra vires and he has no jurisdiction to try the suit. The Small Causes Court rejected that application. Hence this writ petition. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and the only point involved for consideration is whether section 9 of Civil Laws Amendment Act (Act No. 37 of 1972) is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and is void. Since the filing of this writ petition the question had been set at rest by a Division Bench of this Court in Sarju Prasad v. Second Additional District Judge, Kanpur, AIR 1975 Allahabad 13. It has been held that provision for transfer of pending suits between lessors and lessees to small causes court from regular civil court is not hit by Article 14 of the Constitution as it does not suffer from the vice of discrimination. The object of transferring suits between the lessors and lessees to the court of small causes was to avoid multiplicity of appeals and to have a speedy trial and decision. Hence section 9 of the Civil Laws Amendment Act is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and the writ petition has no force. 5. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with costs on parties. The stay order is vacated.