Shiv Shankar vs Shashibala and another

Shishir Kumar, J.

Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Singh II, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri V. K. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for respondents.

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.

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 32Gha has prayed to deposit rent and interest for which application has already been allowed.The application 28C 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.

I have considered the submissions made on behalf of parties and have perused the record. In this case, it appears that property was sold by petitioner by a registered sale deed and rent note was executed. When rent was not paid, respondents filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment. While filing written statement, a mere deinal of relationship of landlord and tenant was made but no evidence was filed to show that respondents is not landlord of the property in question. As it was a simplicitor suit for arrears of rent and ejectment, in such circumstances, the Judge, Small Causes Court on an application made by petitioner for the purposes of framing issues has held that there is no provision under the Judge, Small Causes Court Act that isuses have to be framed. After leading the evidence, if it is found that it is necessary to be framed then it can be done. It will all be applicable on the facts and circumstances of each and every case. From the perusal of record of present case, it clearly appears that it is simplictor suit of arrears of rent and ejectment. The judgment cited by learned counsel for petitioner will not be applicable in the facts of the present case. All the courts have said that there is no dispute to this effect that various provisions of Civil Procedure Code are applicable and Order XIV Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for framing of issues by the Court while deciding the suit. There is no provision that Provincial Small Causes Court Act and the Judge, Small Causes Act need not frame issues while deciding the suit instituted in his courts. If issues are framed, parties concerned will be able to know on which point the evidence is to be led. The court shall frame issue will be narrow to the point in dispute but no court has said that it is a mandatory upon the Judge, Small Causes Court to frame issues and if issues are not been framed, the judgments are liable to be set aside on this ground. Present case is simplicitor suit for arrears of rent and ejectment and if ultimately on the basis of evidence it transpires to the Court that framing of issues are necesary then it will be done.

In my opinion, court was justified in rejecting the application. The present writ petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed, however, without imposing any cost.