In summary suits, it is not mandatory to frame issues, and the court may decide based on the consideration of the plaint case and the defense. The burden of proof lies with the parties to establish rent payment and other claims.

Tenants of a shop have preferred this revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 against the judgment and order dated 9.11.2012 of the Small Causes Court decreeing the respondent-landlord's suit for arrears of rent, eviction and damages.

2. I heard Sri B.B. Paul, learned counsel for the tenants and Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, learned counsel for the landlord.

3. Sri Paul in attacking the order impugned contended that the court below had decreed the suit without framing issues; it had wrongly disbelieved the rent deed dated 26.2.1998 (paper No.39G); the tenants had not defaulted in payment of rent and the evidence regarding sending the rent by money order could not be brought on record in the court below but can be taken on record under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C.; and the damages awarded at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month is more than the rate of rent.

4. The suit in question is one under Section 15 of the Act and is of a summary nature. It is well settled that in a suit of such a nature it is not mandatory to frame issues. The provisions of Order XIV C.P.C. relating to settlement of issues are not applicable to proceedings before Small Cause Court in view of Order L Rule 1(a) C.P.C. as has been held in Dau Dayal Tandon Vs. Additional District Judge, Naini Tal and others 1982 ARC 356 and a series of decision thereafter. The only thing required is that the court below on consideration of the plaint case and the defence may indicate the points which arise for consideration.

5. All points which arose in the suit have been dealt with by the court below one by one and the tenants have addressed the court on all those points.

6. In view of the above, the decision of the suit without actually framing issues is not perverse or erroneous and cannot be said to have caused any prejudice to the tenants.

7. The rent deed dated 26.2.1998 (paper No.39Ga) has been disbelieved for the reason that the court below on consideration of the opinion of the hand-writing experts and otherwise had come to a finding that it does not bear the signatures of the landlord. Even otherwise, it is admitted that the said rent deed was in connection with an adjoining shop different from the shop in question and in case tenants had made payment of any amount as per the said rent deed in connection with the tenancy of the adjoining shop and the same was not actually let out to them their remedy lies elsewhere, may be in a suit for recovery of the amount alleged to have been paid. The amount, if any, paid under the said rent deed was not in connection with the tenanted shop and could not have been adjusted against its arrears. The said rent deed therefore, has no bearing on the result of the present suit.

8. It is not in dispute that the tenants failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove that they paid rent of the shop in question for the period claimed at the rate of Rs.600/- per months which is admitted as per the statement of one of the tenants Yaseen in cross-examination.

9. Along with the revision the tenants have filed four receipts of money order in original along with an application to take them on record as part of the evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. On plain reading of the application and the affidavit in support thereof reveal that the tenants have not made out any case for accepting the above money order receipts in additional evidence. The ingredients necessary for accepting the additional evidence envisaged under Order 41 Rule 27 have not been satisfied. Moreover, the said rent receipts are also not of sufficient amount so as to satisfy the entire arrears of rent.

10. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the said money order receipts cannot be taken on record and even if considered would not alter the result of the suit. The court below on the basis of the evidence before it had rightly held the tenants to be defaulters and in arrears of rent.

11. The rent of the shop in question w.e.f. 26.2.1998 is admi