HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD S.C.C. REVISION No. - 118 of 2025 Court No. - 37 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Sri Sunil Dutt Kautilya, learned counsel for the revisionist- tenant and Sri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party- landlord. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the S.C.C. Suit for arrears of rent and ejectment of tenant from the shop in dispute, filed by the respondent-landlord was registered as S.C.C. Suit No.16 of 2018. In the aforementioned S.C.C. Suit, issues were framed and the parties have adduced evidence in support of their case. The Judge, Small Causes, Muzaffarnagar decreed the aforementioned S.C.C. Suit for ejectment of tenant as well as for payment of arrears of rent by tenant to landlord. Hence, the instant revision under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act for the following relief:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the present S.C.C. Revision and set aside the judgment and order dated 31.7.2025 and decree dated 12.8.2025, passed by the Additional Judge, Court No.6, Muzaffarnagar in Small Cause Case No.16/2018 (Aahshan @ Ahshan vs. Susheel Kumar), otherwise the plaintiff/revisionist shall suffer irreparable loss and injury." 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the judgment and decree passed by the Judge, Small Causes is erroneous as there is no proper consideration of the issues framed before the Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Satyavrat Sahai, Sunil Dutt Kautilya Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Nipun Singh Susheel Kumar .....Revisionist(s) Mohd. Aahashan Alias Ahshan .....Opposite Party(s) Judge, Small Causes. He placed issue no.1 and finding recorded thereon in order to demonstrate that there is no consideration of the issue before the Judge, Small Cause. He further placed other issues and the finding recorded thereon in order to demonstrate that the judgment passed by the Judge, Small Cause is liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, Sri Nipun Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-landlord submitted that there is no illegality in the judgment and decree passed by the Judge, Small Causes as finding of fact has been recorded by the Judge, Small Causes Court while decreeing the S.C.C. Suit. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that the S.C.C. Suit No.16/2018 filed by the respondent-landlord has been decreed under the impugned judgment and decree dated 31.7.2025/12.8.2025. 7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the perusal of the issues framed in the S.C.C. Suit will be relevant which is as under:- "4-उभय पक्ष के अिभवचनों के आधार पर इस मामले में िदनांक 26.02.2019 को िनम्निलिखत वाद िबन्दु होते हैं:- 01. क्या प्रितवादी वादी की ओर से प्रश्नगत दुकान में मुबिलग 3,000/- रुपये माहवार की दर से िकरायेदार है? 02. क्या प्रितवादी की ओर िदनांक 01.09.2015 से िकराया वािजब है? 03. क्या वादी प्रितवादी की िकरायेदारी नोिटस िदनांिकत 19.07.2018 िजसकी तामील प्रितदादी पर िदनांक 24.07.2018 को हो चुकी है, के द्वारा समाप्त कर चुका है? 04. क्या प्रितवादी िदनांक 24.08.2018 से प्रश्नगत दुकान पर बहैिसयत ट्रेसपासर कािबज है? 05. क्या वादी, प्रितवादी से िदनांक 24.08.2018 से मुबिलग 3,000/-रुपये माहवार की दर से हजार् इस्तेमाल प्राप्त करने का अिधकारी है? 06. क्या प्रश्नगत दुकान पर यू.पी. एक्ट 13 सन् 1972 के प्रािवधान लागू नहीं होते हैं? SCCR No. 118 of 2025 2 07. अन्य अनुतोष" 8. The perusal of the relevant portion of the judgment passed on issue no.1 will also be necessary which is as under:- "िनष्कषर् 11- िनस्तारण वाद िबन्दु संख्या 01:- वाद िबन्दु सं. 01 इस आशय से िवरिचत िकया गया है िक क्या इससे यह प्रितवादी वादी की ओर से प्रश्नगत दुकान में मुबिलग 3,000/- रुपये माहवार की दर से िकरायेदार है? 12- दोनों को मािलक व िकराएदार का सम्बन्ध होना स्वीकार है। िकसी भी पक्षकार को इस बात से इंकार नहीं है िक प्रितवादी, वादी का िकराएदार नहीं है। स्वीकृ त तथ्यों को सािबत करने की आवश्यकता नहीं है। प्रितवादपत्र के प्रस्तर संख्या 26 में वादी को दुकान मािलक तथा स्वयं िकराएदार होना स्वीकार िकया है। तद्नुसार यह वाद िबन्दु िनस्तािरत िकया जाता हैI" 9. The perusal of the judgment passed on issue no.1 demonstrate that there is no consideration of the issue as framed in the S.C.C. Suit, as such, the judgment and decree passed by the Judge, Small Cause dated 31.7.2025/12.8.2025 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 10. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment and decree dated 31.7.2025/12.8.2025, passed by the Judge, Small Cause, Muzaffar Nagar is set aside. The revision is allowed and the matter is remitted back before the Judge, Small Causes to register the S.C.C. Suit on its original number. The Judge, Small Cause, Muzaffar Nagar shall decide the aforementioned S.C.C. Suit afresh in respect to all the seven issues framed in the S.C.C. Suit, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, in accordance with law. September 11, 2025 C.Prakash SCCR No. 118 of 2025 3 (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad