The judgment emphasized the importance of a well-structured and reasoned judgment, containing a concise statement of the case, points for determination, decision, and reasons for such decision.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Gaurav Gautam, learned counsel for the plaintiff-revisionist and Ms. Babita Upadhyay, learned counsel for the defendant-respondent.

2. The present revision has been filed with the prayer to set aside the judgment and decree dated 20.02.2021 passed by Judge, Small Causes/Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr in Small Causes Case No.6 of 2017 (CNR No.UPBU07000992017) by which suit filed by the plaintiff-revisionist was dismissed.

3. The facts in brief as contained in the affidavit filed in support of the present revision are that the plaintiff-revisionist filed a case being Small Causes Case No.6 of 2017 in the Court of Small Causes Court/Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr, for arrear of rent and ejectment of the defendant-respondent from the shop in dispute situated at Mohalla Nehruganj, Kasba, Pargana and Tehsil Anupshahr, District, Bulandshahr. The plaintiff had let out his shop to the defendant-respondent on rent of Rs.4,000/-per month. The rent was not received from defendant since 1.3.2015, and the defendant is continuously using the shop in question. In this regard, a registered notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, was sent by the plaintiff-revisionist to the defendant-respondent on 18.9.2017 but the premise in question was not vacated by the defendant-respondents, hence the suit was filed.

4. In the aforesaid suit, the defendant-respondent has filed his written statements on 9.3.2018 denying the statement made in the plaint. Reply to the aforesaid, a written statement was filed by the plaintiff-revisionist on 9.4.2018.

5. In the aforesaid suit following issues were framed before the court below :-

^^5- i{kdkjks ds vfHkopuksa ds vk/kkj ij fuEufyf[kr fofu'p; fcUnq fojfpr fd;s x;s&
1- D;k oknh fookfnr nqdku dk Hkou Lokeh gS vkSj izfroknh mlesa 4000@& :i;s izfrekg dh nj ls fdjk;snkj gS rFkk i{kdkjksa ds e/; Hkou Lokeh o fdjk;snkj dk lEca/k LFkkfir gS\
2+- D;k izfroknh ds }kjk fdjk;s dh vnk;xh esa pwd dh x;h gS\
3- D;k fookfnr nqdku ij mŒizŒ vf/kfu;e la[;k 13 lu 1972 ds izko/kku ykxw ugh gksrs gS\
4- D;k izfroknh dh fdjk;snkjh oS/k uksfVl ds ek/;e ls lekIr dh x;h gS\
5+- D;k okn/kkjk 23 ihŒ,lŒlhŒlhŒ ,DV ds izko/kku ls ckf/kr gS\
6- vuqrks"k\
okn fcUnq ds lEca/k esa igys ls i=koyh ij lk{; miyC/k gS vU; lk{; dh vko';drk ugh gSA^^

6. The first and the main issue was that whether there is a relationship of landlord and tenant or not. The aforesaid issue was decided against the plaintiff-revisionist. Finding were recorded by the court below that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant. Since the first and main issue was decided against the plaintiff-revisionist, the other issues were also decided in the same manner. Aggrieved against the aforesaid, the present revision has been filed by the plaintiff-revisionist.

7. It is argued by learned counsel for the plaintiff-revisionist that the court below completely overlooked the evidences filed by the plaintiff-revisionist, reference of which has been made in paragraph 6 of the order impugned. It is further argued that the trial court failed to appreciate the fact that ownership of the shop in question was proved vide order dated 16.9.2019 and the house tax receipt of Nagar Palika revealed that the shop was a rented shop and the notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act was duly served on the defendant-respondent. It is further argued that the trial court overlooked the mandate of Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 which provides that the tenancy/lease can also be created orally and the same has been affirmed by this Hon'ble Court in case of Yashpal Lal Shiv Narayan Vs. Allah Tala Malik Waqf Azkhan AIR 2006 IL 115. Learned counsel for the plaintiff -revisionist has also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder Vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P. Temple and another reported in (2003) 0 Supreme (SC) 994, wherein it has been held that the entires in house tax register