JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal, J. – Heard Sri Nripendra Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri K.K. Arora for the respondents. 2. The judgment and order dated 28.5.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge in exercise of powers as Judge Small Causes decreeing the suit for rent and eviction is sought to be revised under Section 25 of the Small Causes Court Act, 1887. 3. The suit has been decreed holding that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the tenancy has been validly determined by notice dated 3.1.2009 and that the revisionist has defaulted in payment of rent. 4. Sri Nripendra Mishra has advanced two submissions. 5. The first is that the respondents after purchase of the property allegedly vide sale deed dated 26.1.2001 have not submitted only proof thereof. Therefore, the relationship of landlord and tenant between them never came into existence. Secondly, the trial court had framed five issues and one of them was with regard to jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court which had not been decided. 6. The owner of the property in dispute was one Smt. Shanta Mittal. It is admitted that the revisionist had been paying rent to her till the date of her death in the year 1998. The respondents served a notice dated 3.1.2009 upon the revisionist demanding rent and determining tenancy on the allegation that they have purchased the property from the successor of the previous owner vide registered sale deed dated 26.12.2001 with complete details of its registration. 7. In response to the said notice, the revisionist had submitted a reply dated 6th February 2009 demanding proof of ownership of the property without denying or disputing the statement of purchase or the particulars of the purchase of the property as contained in the notice. It appears that the respondents ignored the reply and submitted no document to establish their ownership. 8. The supply or production of any document with regard to ownership is not very material when the respondents have given complete details of the registered sale deed. The revisionist could have verified about the sale deed from the record of the Sub-Registrar and in the event the document was not found to be registered or otherwise fake then probably it could have been right on its part to have disputed the ownership of the petitioner and demanded the proof thereof. 9. The revisionist could have verified about the sale deed from the record of the Sub-Registrar and in the event the document was not found to be registered or otherwise fake then probably it could have been right on its part to have disputed the ownership of the petitioner and demanded the proof thereof. 9. The question of ownership is not required to be decided in a suit for arrears of rent and eviction. Therefore, also the demand of proof of ownership had no relevance. The existence of relationship of landlord and tenant alone was relevant which aspect has been decided by the court on 4.5.2011 while deciding issue no. 1. The trial court by the aforesaid order held that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between them. This order was challenged by the revisionist by filing Civil Revision No. 329 of 2011 which was dismissed on 28.7.2011. Thus, the finding on the aforesaid is final and it is no longer open for the revisionist to reagitate the same in this revision. Once the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant stand proved, the question of ownership pales into insignificance in a suit of rent and eviction. 10. The second contention of the counsel for the revisionist that issue no. 2 with regard to jurisdiction of the Small Cause Cases to try the suit had remained undecided. 11. In this regard exists no pleadings in the written statement of the revisionist. In the absence of the pleadings regarding jurisdiction it was not possible to frame any issue in that regard. Even if an issue has been framed but it is not material, its non decision would not be fatal notwithstanding that Order 14 CPC do provides for deciding all issues arising in the suit. 12. it is worth noting that the said issue was decided vide order dated 4.5.2011 earlier. 13. The aforesaid order dated 4.5.2011 which has been enclosed with the supplementary affidavit reveals that in deciding issue nos. 1,2 and 3, the court had not only come to the conclusion that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties but that the court also has jurisdiction to adjudicate the lis involved in the suit. 14. 13. The aforesaid order dated 4.5.2011 which has been enclosed with the supplementary affidavit reveals that in deciding issue nos. 1,2 and 3, the court had not only come to the conclusion that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties but that the court also has jurisdiction to adjudicate the lis involved in the suit. 14. It may relevant to mention here that ordinarily in a suit of a summary nature triable by Small Cause Court in view of Order 50, Rule 1 CPC it is not necessary to settle the issues and formulation of the points of determination and decision on each of those points is more than sufficient to indicate that the court understand the controversy and has decided the same. 15. Thus, the argument that the aforesaid issue was not decided is misconceived. 16. Learned counsel for the revisionist even at this stage was given opportunity to give one good reason on the basis of which it can be said that the Small Causes Court lacked jurisdiction in the matter but he failed to point out any reason. 17. In view of the aforesaid fats and circumstances, I find no merit in the revision and the same is dismissed with no orders as to costs. Revision dismissed.