SHISHIR KUMAR,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Arvind Kumar Singh II, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri V. K. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for respondents.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed against an order dated 9.11.2009 (Annexure 5 to writ petition) by which application filed by petitioner for framing issues have been rejected. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that Judge, Small Causes Court is bound to frame issues which is to be decided but without framing issues what is to be decided is not established, therefore, the Court has wrongly rejected the application. Further, learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon judgments of this Court reported in 2005(1) Allahabad Rent Cases, 196 Vikas Pawar Vs. Smt. Tara Rani and another and 1997 Allahabad Rent Cases, 865 Yasin and others Vs. Ist Additional District Judge, Bijnor and others as well as judgment of Apex Court reported in 1993 (1) Allahabad Rent Cases, 249 Rameshwar Dayal Vs. Banda (Dead) through his LRs and another. Placing reliance upon aforesaid judgments learned counsel for petitioner submits that Supreme Court as well as this Court has held that it is obligatory upon Small Causes Court to state the points for determiantion and to give a finding of decision on each of the said points. In Vikas Pawar case (Supra) the Court has stated that, in case, title is denied and before entering into the facts, to that effect, a particular issue to that effect has to be framed. In such situation, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the court below has erred in law in not framing issues and rejected the application filed by petitioner.
(3.) ON the other hand, Sri Agarwal learned counsel appearing for respondents submits that application filed by petitioner for this purpose has already been rejected on 24.10.2009 and a finding to that effect has been recorded that it has to be seen whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant or not. Further petitioner by means of application 32-Gha has prayed to deposit rent and interest for which application has already been allowed.The application 28-C filed by petitioner for summoning sale deed and other documents have already been rejected on the ground that as written statment has already been filed, therefore, there is no necessity for summoning the said record and the said application was rejected on 24.10.2009.;