SUNITA AGARWAL,J. - (1.) Shri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of revisionists and Shri Pankaj Agarwal, learned Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
(2.) The contention of learned counsel for the revisionists is that since the defence has been struck off by the Court below, the revisionists did not get opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. The revision filed against the order of striking off the defence is pending before this Court. There was no occasion for the Small Causes Court to proceed with the suit and decide the same on merits. This submission of learned counsel for the revisionists does not find merit for the simple reason that the revisionists had contested the suit by filing the written statement. In the written statement, default in payment of rent is not disputed. Even, if the revisionists were allowed to cross-examine the plaintiff, nothing much could have been brought on record.
(3.) Next submission is that the court below had decided the suit without framing the issues as per the procedure provided under the Civil Procedure Code. The Small Causes Court is not under obligation to frame issues and record findings on each issue separately. The proceedings by the Small Causes Court are summary in nature, however, the Small Causes Court is under obligation to consider the pleadings of the parties, the evidences on record and specific findings on the issues raised therein are required to be recorded. The suit for eviction filed by the respondents has been decreed vide judgment and order dated 12.1.2017 with the specific findings recorded therein that the rent of the suit premises was 30,000/- p.m. The revisionists were in arrears from July 2010 to July 2012. The notice dated 2.7.2012 terminating the tenancy was served upon the revisionists. Despite service of the said notice, the revisionists did not vacate the suit premises. The defence was struck off vide order dated 13.11.2014. The order of striking off defence was challenged in a revision which is pending before this Court, however, there is no interim order restraining the Small Causes Court to proceed with the order.;