Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) AS the case is listed peremptorily, hence illness slip filed by Sri P. Saxena, learned Counsel for contesting respondent is ignored. List is revised. No one appears for the respondents. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. Landlord petitioner filed S.C.C. Suit No. 482 of 1978, Vijay Kumar v. Mohd. Siddiq, before Judge, "Small Causes Court Bareilly. Mohd. Siddiq has since died and is survived by respondents 2 to 7. In the plaint of the suit it was alleged that plaintiff was owner and defendant was his tenant. For eviction ground of default was taken in the plaint. It appears that defendant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. Qabooliyat (acknowledgement) signed by original defendant Mohd. Siddiq dated 5.3.1968 was filed before the Trial Court. It is most unfortunate that the Trial Court/J.S.C.C. decreed the suit in the most unsatisfactory manner. Four issues were framed. First three issues pertained to relationship of landlord and tenant default and validity of notice. Reasoning and finding on all these 3 issues are of one line each which have been quoted by the revisional court and are again quoted below: (Copy of judgment of trial Court has not been annexed along with writ petition). Issue No. 1: Relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the plaintiff and the defendant. Issue No. 2: Defendant has committed default in payment of rent.. Issue No. 3: Tenancy of tenant has been legally determined by the plaintiff's notice.
(2.) IN fact findings contained lesser words than the issues. Even though Judge Small Causes Court is not required to write such a detailed judgment as regular Civil Court, still by no stretch of imagination the above findings can be sustained. Against the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court dated 10.2.1986 respondents 2 to 7 filed S.C.C. Revision No. 3 of 1986. IVth A.D.J. Bareilly through judgment and order dated 30.10.1987, allowed the revision and after setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, remanded the matter to the Trial Court for fresh decision. In my opinion, Revisional Court had no alternative. The judgment of the Trial Court cannot be described as judgment in the legal sense.
(3.) HOWEVER , there is one aspect of the matter which requires consideration. Rent note/Qabooliyat was unregistered. Revisional Court held the same to be inadmissible in evidence for want of registration. Trial Court had not stated any thing in that regard. When the matter was remanded this question should also have been left to be decided by the Trial Court. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that even if the Rent note/Qabooliyat is ignored, month to month tenancy can validly be created through oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession.;