ORDER V.K. Mehrotra, J. - This is a plaintiffs application in revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The suit of the plaintiff had been decreed only in part. Hence, he has come to this court. 2. The premises in dispute were taken on rent by the State of U. P. for purposes of storing foodgrains. There was an agreement about the rate at which rent in respect of the godown was to be paid by the defendant, parties, however, did not agree on the question as to what really the said agreement meant. The amount which, according to the plaintiff, was due not having been paid for considerable period, a suit for its recovery as also for relief of ejectment was filed by the plaintiff. In this suit, several claims were raised. Apart from claiming the amount of rent which was in arrears, the plaintiff also sought to recover an amount by way of damages for use and occupation after the tenancy of the opposite party had been terminated. A sum of Rs. 150/- was also claimed by the plaintiff as compensation for the damage caused by the opposite party to the electrical installations etc. The plaintiff also claimed interest on the unpaid amount as well as an amount towards cost of notice. He also prayed for relief of ejectment. 3. The suit was tried by the Judge Small Causes. The learned Judge framed two issues, namely, as to what was the rate of the premises in suit and further as to what was the amount of rent due to the plaintiff. On the first question, the learned Judge came to the conclusion, on the basis of the evidence on record that the total rent of the pakka portion of the godown came to Rs. 64.75 per month whereas in respect of the remaining portion, it came to Rs. 149.32 per month, the total being Rs. 213.82 per month. On the second question, the learned Judge concluded that the plaintiff was entitled in the present suit to recover two years rent from March 12, 1973 to March 12, 1975 (the date of the suit). He observed that he saw no reason to award interest. Consequently, he decreed the suit for recovery of an amount equivalent to two years rent with proportionate costs. He observed that he saw no reason to award interest. Consequently, he decreed the suit for recovery of an amount equivalent to two years rent with proportionate costs. He also passed a decree to the effect that the plaintiff would be entitled to pendente lite rent at the rate of Rs. 213.82 per month subject to payment of necessary court-fee. 4. Appearing on behalf of the plaintiff, his learned counsel, Sri N. P. Misra has contended that the trial Judge had failed to deal with that part of the claim in the suit which related to the ejectment of defendants. He has also contended that the learned Judge has not dealt at all, with the claim of the plaintiff relating to the sum of Rs. 150/- claimed by him by way of compensation for the damages caused to electrical installations etc. and has also not said anything about the cost of notice claimed by the plaintiff. His further submission is that the learned Judge has not given any reason as to why the plaintiff was not entitled to any amount by way of interest. 5. It has been seen above that the trial Judge has not gone into the question of the relief of ejectment claimed by the plaintiff nor has he gone into the question of the amount claimed as compensation for damages, caused to the electrical installations etc. and the amount of the cost of the notice. The order-sheet to the case maintained by the trial Judge does not indicate that at any stage, these claims were given up by the plaintiff. It was, therefore, necessary for the trial Judge to have dealt with these claims in his decision. In so far as the decision under challenge does not deal with the aforesaid aspects, it is necessary that the trial Judge should deal with the matter in accordance with law. For the purpose, therefore, it becomes necessary to send the case back to him. 6. It has been strenuously contended by Sri A. P. Singh, learned Standing Counsel that since the trial Judge framed only two issues, it must be presumed that any claim apart from that covered by those issues had been given up by the plaintiff. As such, the non-consideration of these claims by the trial Judge cannot be said to have vitiated his judgment. I am unable to agree. As such, the non-consideration of these claims by the trial Judge cannot be said to have vitiated his judgment. I am unable to agree. As noticed above, the order-sheet of the trial court does not indicate that at any stage the plaintiff had given up the claims apart from those which were covered by the issues. Even from the perusal of the judgment, it is apparent that the trial Judge did not consider that the plaintiff had confined his claims only to those which were covered by the two issues because even though no specific issue was framed by the trial Judge yet the claim made by the plaintiff for awarding interest was actually gone into by him. While it is true that it is not necessary for a Judge, Small Causes, to frame issues yet, as required by R. 4 of O. XX, C. P. C., he is required to mention in the judgment the points for determination. If on the pleading of the parties, certain points arise for determination, they must be mentioned by the Judge unless some or any of them have been given up by the parties. 7. In the result, the application in levision succeeds and is allowed. The case is remanded back to the trial Judge for dealing with it in accordance with law in so tar as the plaintiffs claim about ejectment, compensation for the damage caused to the electrical installation and cost of notice etc. are concerned. The playftiff-applicant is entitled to his costs.