Sudhir Narain Agarwal, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 13.12.1992 passed by Judge Small Causes Court decreeing the suit against the petitioner for arrears of rent, ejectment and damages and the order dated 15th March, 1993 passed by the District Judge, Shajahanpur affirming the said ordeR.The facts, in brief, are that the respondents No. 3 to 7 filed S.C.C. Suit No. 19 of 1993 for arrears of rent, ejectment and damages against the petitioner on the allegation that Sri Prem Narain Srivastava, father of plaintiffs, had let out the accommodation in question to the petitioner on 7th August, 1986 at monthly rent of Rs. 110/ -. The provisions of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act, No. 13 of 1972) were not applicable as the constructions were new. A notice dated 23rd October, 1988 was sent to the petitioner demanding rent for the period 7th March, 1988 to 7th October, 1988 but the petitioner did not comply with the notice. The notice sent to the petitioner was refused.
(2.) THE petitioner filed written statement in the case and it was stated that the agreed rate of rent was Rs. 85/ - per month and not Rs. 110/ - per month. It was denied that he was served with a notice of demand and termination of tenancy as alleged by the plaintiffs. The Judge Small Causes Court framed two points for decision: i. What was the rate of rent? ii. Whether the plaintiffs served the notice dated 15th October, 1988 and terminated the tenancy? The plaintiffs filed documentary evidence and produced Suraj Prasad, one of the plaintiffs in the suit and one Sri Narain Singh as P.W. 2. The petitioner appeared as a witness in support of his case and produced one Ram Prasad as a witness in support of his version. The Judge Small Causes Court recorded finding after considering the oral and documentary evidence that the rate of rent was Rs. 110/ - per month and further the notice dated 15th October, 1988 was served and the tenancy of the petitioner was terminated. The petitioner filed revision against the said order on 15th March, 1993 respondent No. 1 passed the following order: - - Heard. Not admitted.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that the learned District Judge acted illegally in dismissing the revision without examining the evidence on record and without considering the points raised by him. The court did not give any reason for dismissing the revision. He placed reliance upon the case M/s. Krishna Fine Art Printers v. Ram Chandra Sharma, : 1979 AWC 365. In the said case an ex parte decree was passed slating that the plaintiff examined himself and deposed to the facts stated in the plaint and the plaintiff was entitled to ex parte decree. This Court was of the view that while deciding a suit as a Judge Small Cause, the trial Judge is not required to write down an elaborate judgment yet it is essential in law to mention in the judgment the necessary facts relating to the controversy, the points for determination arising therein and his decision thereon in accordance with the provisions of Rule 4 of Order 20 C.P.C.;