Saeed-Uz-Zaman Siddiqi, J.:— Power filed by Sri A.K. Jauhari, on behalf of the respondent be taken on record. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and gone through the records. This revision has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 8.8.2012 passed by Small Causes Court/Additional District Judge (Ex-Cadre), Unnao, by which S.C.C. Suit No.1 of 2011 has been partially decreed. Without entering into the merits of the disputes between the parties, at the outset the operative portion of the judgment is innocuous. The decree based upon this judgment shall never been executable. The learned counsel for the respondent, who is landlord also submits that his client has to file a revision, as the limitation to prefer a revision has not yet expired. Brief facts, relevant for the purposes of deciding this revision are that, the landlord filed suit for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent. Suit was contested by the tenant. The rate of rent was disputed. It was also disputed that the disputed premises was let out to the tenant, without allotment order. The learned Trial Court framed issues and made detailed discussions running into sixteen pages, ignoring the provisions, contained in Order 20 Rule 4 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure and, thereby, unnecessarily wasted precious time of the Court. The basic folly is that the suit has been partially decreed as is evident from the first sentence of the operative portion of the judgment. The second sentence shows the arrears of recovery of rent has been decreed. In the second para, mode of payment of rent and, in case of default, the consequences have been directed, but in the third para of the judgment, the Learned Trial Court has declared the shop to be vacant, but there is no mention in the entire order that the suit for eviction has been decreed or dismissed. The copy of the judgment has been sent to the learned District Magistrate for initiation of allotment proceedings, deeming vacancy. Reliance has been placed on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nutan Kumar and ors. The copy of the judgment has been sent to the learned District Magistrate for initiation of allotment proceedings, deeming vacancy. Reliance has been placed on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nutan Kumar and ors. v. IInd Additional District Judge and ors., 2002 (2) ARC 645, in which it was held in para 13:- "Thus unless the statute specifically provides that a contract contrary to the provisions of the statute would be void the contract would remain binding between the parties and could be enforced between the parties themselves." The Hon'ble Apex Court has relied upon law laid down by it in Nanakram v. Kundalraj, 1986 (2) SCR 839 , in which it was held:- "...it was held that in the absence of any mandatory provision obliging eviction in case of contravention of the provisions of the Act the lease would not be void and the parties would be bound, as between themselves, to observe the conditions of lease." This court is purposely restraining itself from entering into the merits of the case, so that rehearing or rewriting of the judgment by the learned Trial Court may not be affected. But the judgment, as it is, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The courts are meant to dispense with justice, and are not meant to write judgment and judgment also, which are of no consequence. Preparation of a waste paper is not the requirement of law. A court is expected to function, in such a fashion, that the disputes between two warring parties are settled forever. Courts are meant to erase ambiguities not the create the same. With these observations, judgment and decree is set aside and the revision is allowed. The learned Trial Court is directed to rehear and afford opportunity to the parties of being heard and decide the case, strictly in accordance with law. _____________