# Heera Lal Chaurasiya & Ors v. Pradeep Kumar Chaudhary & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 8 ILRA 880
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-08-08
- **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/heera-lal-chaurasiya-ors-v-pradeep-kumar-chaudhary-ors-44281
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Small Cause Court Suit - Rent and eviction decree challenged under Article 227; tenants questioned rate of
rent, validity of notice determining tenancy, and contended that the Small Causes Court had not formulated
points of determination before pronouncing judgment - Held, prior framing of issues or prior formulation of
points of determination is not mandatory in a summary suit under Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause
Courts Act, 1887; Order XIV Rule 1 CPC stands excluded by Order L Rule 1(a) CPC, and compliance with Order
XX Rule 4 CPC is sufficient if the judgment itself states the points for determination and the decision thereon;
earlier dismissal of tenants' declaratory suit regarding rent was a material piece of evidence on rate of rent; no
defect in notice was pleaded or proved; petition dismissed, though four months' time granted to vacate on
undertaking and payment of damages at Rs. 1,000/- per month from 1.8.2016. (Paras 7-25)
Petition Dismissed

Case Law discussed:
Dau Dayal Tandon v. Additional District Judge, Naini Tal and others, 1982 ARC 356
Mazahar Husain v. Smt. Kaneej Zairab, 1999 (2) LCD 317
Yasin and another v. Murari Lal, 2013 (2) ARC 376
Kamla Verma (Smt.) v. Union of India, 2015 (2) ARC 514
Rameshwar Dayal v. Banda through his L.Rs. and another, 1993 (1) ARC 249

## Text

880 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(2016) 8 ILRA 880
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No.- 2961 Of 2016

Heera Lal Chaurasiya & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Pradeep Kumar Chaudhary & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Ramendra Asthana, V.S. Kushwaha, Veer Bhagat Singh Kushwah

Counsel for the Respondents:
Manish Kumar Jain; Sri P.K. Jain, Senior Counsel assisted at hearing

Small Cause Court Suit - Rent and eviction decree challenged under Article 227; tenants questioned rate of
rent, validity of notice determining tenancy, and contended that the Small Causes Court had not formulated
points of determination before pronouncing judgment - Held, prior framing of issues or prior formulation of
points of determination is not mandatory in a summary suit under Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause
Courts Act, 1887; Order XIV Rule 1 CPC stands excluded by Order L Rule 1(a) CPC, and compliance with Order
XX Rule 4 CPC is sufficient if the judgment itself states the points for determination and the decision thereon;
earlier dismissal of tenants' declaratory suit regarding rent was a material piece of evidence on rate of rent; no
defect in notice was pleaded or proved; petition dismissed, though four months' time granted to vacate on
undertaking and payment of damages at Rs. 1,000/- per month from 1.8.2016. (Paras 7-25)
Petition Dismissed

Case Law discussed:
Dau Dayal Tandon v. Additional District Judge, Naini Tal and others, 1982 ARC 356
Mazahar Husain v. Smt. Kaneej Zairab, 1999 (2) LCD 317
Yasin and another v. Murari Lal, 2013 (2) ARC 376
Kamla Verma (Smt.) v. Union of India, 2015 (2) ARC 514
Rameshwar Dayal v. Banda through his L.Rs. and another, 1993 (1) ARC 249

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.)

1. 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.
8 All. Heera Lal Chaurasiya & Ors. Vs Pradeep Kumar Chaudhary & Ors.
881
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 25.08.2004. 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 01.07.1997. The said
notice was served upon them on 06.09.1997. 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.
882 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

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 vs. 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 vs. 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 vs. 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.) vs. 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 vs. 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. 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.
8 All. Heera Lal Chaurasiya & Ors. Vs Pradeep Kumar Chaudhary & Ors.
883
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 & 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 05.03.2008 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. Lastly, it may not be out of context to mention that the revisional court in one SCC revision
decided on 22.05.2015 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 11.03.2016 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.
-----------
884 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(2016) 8 ILRA 884
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. VIJAY LAXMI, J.

Misc. Bench No.- 13648 Of 2016

Dr. Md. Ayub ...Petitioner
Versus
The Speaker, U.P. Legislative Assembly, Vidhan Bhawan, U.P. Dr. ...Respondent

Counsel for Petitioner:
Ved Prakash Nag

Counsel for Respondent:
Abhinav N. Trivedi

Constitution of India -- Tenth Schedule -- Disqualification on Ground of Defection --
Mandamus to Speaker -- Petitioner, President of a political party, sought direction to Speaker of U.P.
Legislative Assembly to decide pending disqualification petition against two members alleged to have defected
-- Respondent relying on Articles 212 and Rule 6 of Tenth Schedule to contend that such direction
impermissible -- Held: Speaker acts as a Tribunal while deciding disqualification petitions under Rule 6 and is
obliged to perform this duty in accordance with law -- Where such obligation remains unfulfilled, a mandamus
directing the Speaker to decide within a reasonable time is permissible, though the High Court cannot direct or
pre-judge the outcome of the decision itself. (Paras 4 & 5)

Article 212 -- Bar on Judicial Interference with Legislative Proceedings -- Limited Scope --
Article 212 bars inquiry into validity of legislative proceedings on ground of irregularity of procedure and ousts
jurisdiction of courts over exercise of procedural powers by Speaker; however, this does not preclude a
mandamus compelling the Speaker to decide a pending disqualification petition within a reasonable time, as
clarified by the Apex Court, since the Speaker's failure to decide amounts to non-performance of a
statutory/tribunal function distinct from internal legislative procedure. (Paras 3, 4 & 6)

Case Law Discussed

1. Utkal Keshari Parida vs. Speaker, Orissa Legislative Assembly, Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 14868, 14869,
14870 & 14871 of 2012

2. Speaker, Haryana Vidhan Sabha vs. Kuldeep Bishnoi and Others AIR 2013 SC 120

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.
&
Hon'ble Dr. Vijay Laxmi, J.)