Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2723 (ALL)

HEERA LAL CHAURASIYA v. PRADEEP KUMAR CHAUDHARY

2016-08-08

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2016
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Heard Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri P.K. Jain, Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Manish Kumar Jain, has appeared for the contesting respondents. 2. The dispute is in respect of a shop between the owners and landlords on one side and the tenant on the other side. 3. The suit of the owners and landlords for rent eviction has been decreed by the Courts below whereupon this petition has been preferred by the tenant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioner-tenants has raised three points; the first about the rate of the rent; the other about the validity of the notice determining the tenancy; and lastly that the trial Court has failed to formulate the points of determination prior to passing the final judgement. 5. He adds that the same revisional Court in similar circumstances where points of determination were not framed prior to passing the final judgement had remanded the matter, but in the present case it has been dismissed. 6. Sri P.K. Jain, in response, has submitted that all the three arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners-tenants have been dealt with by the Courts below and that there is no error or irregularity in the reasoning given by them. 7. The petitioner-tenants had contended that the rent of the shop was Rs. 17.25 whereas the landlords had pleaded that it was Rs. 60/- per month. 8. There was no dispute that the petitioners-tenants had filed a suit for declaring the rent of the shop to be Rs. 17.25 per month. The said suit was dismissed on 25.8.2004. The owners and landlords brought on record the certified copy of the said judgement which clearly established that the rent of the shop in dispute was not found to be Rs. 17.25 per month as alleged by the petitioner-tenants. The decision of the aforesaid suit may not operate as res-judiceta but it is certainly a material piece of evidence with regard to the rate of rent of the shop in question which has not been controverted by any evidence. 9. Accordingly, the finding recorded by the trial Court as affirmed by the appellate Court on point No. 3 regarding the rate of rent does not suffer from any error of law. 10. The tenancy of the petitioner-tenants was determined vide notice dated 1.7.1997. 9. Accordingly, the finding recorded by the trial Court as affirmed by the appellate Court on point No. 3 regarding the rate of rent does not suffer from any error of law. 10. The tenancy of the petitioner-tenants was determined vide notice dated 1.7.1997. The said notice was served upon them on 6.9.1997. The service of the aforesaid notice was not denied by the petitioner-tenants. No defect in the notice was pleaded in the written statement. The petitioner-tenants even otherwise have not pointed out any defect in the aforesaid notice. 11. Sri Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioners even at this stage has failed to point out any illegality in the notice which may compel one to hold it to be invalid. 12. Lastly, on the question of framing of issues or formulation of points of determination in deciding the suit, there is no dispute that the suit was one under Section 15 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 which was of a summary nature. 13. Order XIV Rule 1 CPC provides for the framing of the issues during the trial of the suit but Order L Rule 1 (a) CPC exempts application of the above rule upon judgements and orders of the Small Causes Courts. Only Order XX Rule 4 applies to the judgement and order of the Small Causes Court which provides that judgement of the Court of Small Causes need not contain more than the points for determination and the decision thereof. 14. In Dau Dayal Tandon v. Additional District Judge, Naini Tal and others, 1982 ARC 356, it has been held that the provisions of Order XIV Rule 1 CPC relating to the settlement of issues are not applicable to the proceedings/judgements of the Small Causes Court in view of the Order L Rule 1 (a) CPC. A judgement given by Small Causes Court without framing issues arising out of the pleadings, but dealing with all such points that arise for determination is not illegal and erroneous. 15. In Mazahar Husain v. Smt. Kaneej Zairab, 1999 (2) LCD 317, it has been held that in view of provisions of Order L Rule 1 CPC the provisions of Order XIV CPC does not apply to the proceedings and judgements of small Cause Courts and it is not necessary for the Court to frame any issue. 16. 15. In Mazahar Husain v. Smt. Kaneej Zairab, 1999 (2) LCD 317, it has been held that in view of provisions of Order L Rule 1 CPC the provisions of Order XIV CPC does not apply to the proceedings and judgements of small Cause Courts and it is not necessary for the Court to frame any issue. 16. Accordingly, framing of issues in a suit before Small Causes Court is not mandatory and the formulation of the points of determination and recording findings thereon are sufficient. This is also the view taken by me in Yasin and another v. Murari Lal, 2013 (2) ARC 376 . In the above case following the law laid down in Dau Dyal Dandon (supra) it was held that it is not mandatory to settle issues in a Small Causes Court Suit and the only thing that is required is to indicate the points of determination arising on the basis of the pleadings. 17. In Kamla Verma (Smt.) v. Union of India, 2015 (2) ARC 514, it has been clearly laid down that in view of the Order XX Rule 4 CPC a judge of Small Causes Court is required to state the points for determination and the decision thereon. It is necessary so as to indicate that the judge has understood the case and the points arising thereof have been considered and decided. The judgement which does not specify the points for determination or the decision thereof, would be illegal or no judgement in the eye of law and justify the remand of the case for retrial. 18. The decision of the Supreme Court in Rameshwar Dayal v. Banda through his L.Rs. and another, 1993 (1) ARC 249, which has been relied upon by Sri Asthana lays down that a judgement and order of the Small Causes Court which does not contain the points of determination and the decision of the Court thereof would not be a judgement within the meaning of Section 2 (a) of the CPC and a such would not be a decree. It nowhere lays down that the points of determination arising in the suit are to be formulated by the Court prior to the final hearing or the pronouncement of the judgement. 19. It nowhere lays down that the points of determination arising in the suit are to be formulated by the Court prior to the final hearing or the pronouncement of the judgement. 19. In view of the above, the said decision is of no help to the petitioner-tenants rather it fortifies that it is not mandatory to frame issues in proceedings before Small Causes Court. The formulation of points of determination which may show that the Court has understood the controversy before it and has decided it is sufficient. 20. Thus, only the points for determination and the decision of the Court on each of the said points is material for the purpose of deciding suit by the the Small Causes Court. There is no provision of law which specifically provide that points for determination have to be formulated by the Small Causes Court prior to the pronouncement of the judgement and should be made known to the parties. The reason is simple, all points arising in summary suits lie in a very narrow compass and are ordinarily limited. Those points are implicit and generally known to the parties going to the trial. Therefore the expression of those points which fell for consideration and addressed by the parties, in the judgement and that they have been decided is more than sufficient. The settlement of issues or the points of determination prior to the judgement and making them known to the parties expressly would frustrate the purpose of summary trial and make it a trial of regular civil suit. Accordingly, neither the settlement of issues nor the formulation of the points of determination prior to writing and pronouncement of the judgement is mandatory in a small cause suit of a summary nature. 21. In the instant case, a bare reading of the judgement and order of the Small Causes Court dated 5.3.2008 reveals that the Court below has not only formulated the points of determination but has also recorded its finding on the above points on the basis of the evidence of the parties. 22. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstance as in the present case the judgement and order of the Small Causes Court contains the points of issues and decision in respect of each one of them, this submission of Sri Asthana also fail. 23. 22. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstance as in the present case the judgement and order of the Small Causes Court contains the points of issues and decision in respect of each one of them, this submission of Sri Asthana also fail. 23. Lastly, it may not be out of context to mention that the revisional Court in one SCC revision decided on 22.5.2015 had remanded the matter to the Small Causes Court for re-trial in the absence of points for determination. The present revisional order has been passed on 11.3.2016 much after the aforesaid decision. The aforesaid decision cannot act as a binding precedent inasmuch as every Court has inherent power to rectify its wrong doings in the subsequent proceedings. Since there is no error or illegality in the revisional judgement and order merely for the reason that in some other case wrong decision was taken by the revisional Court would not be sufficient to hold the decision of the revisional Court to be incorrect. 24. In the end, Sri Asthana prays that the petitioners-tenants be allowed some reasonable time to vacate the shop in dispute. Sri Jain has no objection if the Court grants some reasonable time. 25. In the interest of justice as the petitioner-tenants have to make alternative arrangement to shift their business, four months time from today is allowed to vacate the shop in dispute provided petitioner-tenants furnish an undertaking on affidavit before the trial Court within three weeks from today that he will vacate and hand over peaceful possession of the shop to the respondent-landlords within the time allowed and to pay the rent/damages for its use and occupation w.e.f. 1st August, 2016 @ Rs. 1,000/- per month. 26. In the facts and circumstance there is no merit in the petition and it is accordingly dismissed with the above liberty. ———————