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. 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 Zai