- (1.) This is a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against judgment and order dated 30.5.2009 passed by the Special Judge Essential Commodities exercising powers of the Small Causes Court in SCC Suit No. 12 of 1996, (Ashok Kohli and others v. Anil Kumar Bajpai and others). The plaintiffs respondents, who are the owners and landlords, instituted the above suit for the eviction of the defendants revisionists as tenant from the shop in dispute which is part of house No. C-21/1-35, Moh. Lajpat Nagar, Maldahiya, Varanasi on the ground of subtenancy and default in payment of rent. The suit after contest has been decreed by the impugned judgment and order both on the ground of subtenancy and default in payment of rent and holding that the defendants revisionists are not entitle to the benefit of Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act). I have heard Sri C.K. Parekh, learned counsel for the defendants revisionists and Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents. Three arguments have been advanced by Sri Parekh so as to assail the impugned judgment and order. It has been submitted that the Court below has failed to formulate the points of determination and as such the judgment and order stands vitiated in law. The second submission is that there is no subtenancy and that Radhey Shyam Bajpai and Radha Raman Bajpai were partners of the firm M/s. Anil Engineering Company from the very inception and therefore, the Court below erred in treating them to be the subtenants. Lastly, it has been argued that there is no default in the payment of rent and the Court below has illegally included electricity charges as part of the rent in holding the defendants revisionists to be defaulter.
(2.) The suit for eviction of the tenant from a building is essentially a suit under Section 15 of the Act which is of a summary nature. In view of the provisions of Section 17(1) of the aforesaid Act the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to the proceedings before the Small Causes Court except where it is otherwise provided either by the Code or the Act itself. Order L Rule 1 C.P.C. provides that apart from other provisions of the Code, the provisions of Order XIV C.P.C. relating to the settlement of issues shall not apply to the Provincial Small Causes Courts. Order XX Rule 4(1) C.P.C. which is applicable to proceedings before Small Causes Courts provides that the judgment of a Court of Small Causes need not contain more than the points for determination and the decision thereon. Therefore, it is non-mandatory to frame or settle issues in proceedings before the Small Causes Courts and that formulation of the points for determination and the decision thereof is sufficient.
(3.) In Dau Dayal Tandon v. Additional District Judge Nanital and others, 1981 ARC 503, a learned Single Judge of this Court held that the provisions relating to settlement of issues contained in Order XIV C.P.C. does not apply to the proceedings of the Small Causes Court in view of Order L Rule 1 C.P.C. and that according to Order XX Rule 4(1) C.P.C. the judgment given by the Small Causes Court should only deal with the points arising for consideration and the decision thereof. It has been further held that where the parties new as to what were the points which fell for consideration and those points were decided by the Judge Small Causes that is sufficient to construe it to be a judgment inasmuch as it is the substance and not the form which is of importance in such matters. Therefore, even if points of determination are not specifically enumerated that would not vitiate the judgment of the Small Causes Court.;