JUDGMENT A.K. Yog, J.
1. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Atiq Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the contesting respondent No. 1.
2. The petitioner who happened to be the tenant in the residential accommodation popularly known as Haq Lodge, situate at Civil Lines, Near City Board Office/Civil Hospital, Bulandshahr City, district Bulandshahr, seeks to challenge the impugned judgment and order dated 10.12.2001 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by the appellate authority in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 22 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, U. P, Act No. XIII of 1972 (for short called 'the Act'), allowing Rent Control Appeal No. 4 of 1995. Abdul Haq Khan v. Rajpal Singh alias Rajveer Singh and Ors., allowed the release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. initially rejected by the prescribed authority under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act, vide, judgment and order dated 10.3.1995 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition).
3. The release application dated 7.12.1992 under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act was filed by the landlord-Abdul Haq Khan, the respondent No. 1 primarily on the allegation that he retired in the year 1988 as Professor from Jamia Milia University at Delhi and required the house for his own need. It was also mentioned that original tenant Jai Pal Singh died on 6.12.1991 and petitioner alone lived in the tenanted accommodation hence in the release application petitioner alone was impleaded and other heirs of deceased tenant were not impleaded. The release application was registered at P.A. Case No. 7 of 1991.
4. The tenant petitioner filed objection against the release application contending infer alia amongst others, that the house in question was not genuinely and bona Jide required by the landlord, since he had no Intention to settle at Bulandshahr and reside in the accommodation in question, particularly in view of the fact that after retirement from the University in the year 1988, landlord continued to reside at Delhi. The tenant also alleged that landlord had other accommodation at his ancestor's village Jalal Nagar, district Bulandshahr and also at Delhi in the name of his daughter.
5. The landlord denied to have any house of his own at Delhi. The prescribed authority held that landlord had ancestral residential accommodation in his ancestors village at Jalalpur, district Bulandshahr and that he lived at Delhi in the house belonging to his daughter. The prescribed authority apart from the above also found that wife of the landlord was undergoing medical treatment at Delhi for last seven years and that the landlord under the said circumstance, cannot afford to shift to Bulandshahr. The prescribed authority held that landlord had no bona fide need or genuine intention to settle at Bulandshahr. On the question of comparative hardship also, the prescribed authority held in favour of the tenant.
6. Feeling aggrieved landlord filed Rent Control Appeal No. 4 of 1995, Abdul Haq Khan v. Raj Pal Singh alias Rajveer Singh and Ors., under Section 22 of the Act.
7. During pendency of the appeal, landlord initially filed certain documents by way of additional evidence which were taken on record under the appellate court's order dated 5.2.1996 (quoted in para 9 of the petition).
8. Landlord again filed certain documents paper No. 25 Ga and 27 Ga for being taken on record as additional evidence. Order sheet of 10.5.1996 of the appellate court shows that these documents be placed before the Court on the date fixed.
9. The petitioner contends that neither these documents were admitted on record nor opportunity was given to the tenant for filing evidence in rebuttal.
10. The case is being decided finally at the admission stage itself on the basis of the record of the petition Itself as agreed and consented by the learned counsels for the parties.
11. The appellate authority discussed the evidence on record and came to the conclusion that no house existed, at the relevant time, in ancestral village, the landlord had no occasion to settle there and the landlord could not be directed to go and settle in the village. The appellate authority found that house No. 633, Zakir Nagar, Delhi belonged to his daughter whose children were grown up. The appellate court further noted that the tenant-petitioner had failed to file evidence to prove that house No. 399, Gali No. 9 near Zamia Milia University, Zakir Nagar, New Delhi (wherein the landlord was presently residing) belonged to the landlord and that the tenant had failed to file any substantial clinching evidence from Nagar Nigam, etc. In support of his case.
12. The appellate authority, however, in para 20 of the appellate judgment mentioned that there was no dispute that the landlord had retired in 1988 as Professor in Zamia Millia University, New Delhi and in 1989. he had to leave the house belonging to the employer. The appellate authority, from this circumstance, came to the conclusion that the landlord required the house in question for him and his family members and that his need was bona fide and genuine and consequently. finding on the question of bona fide need recorded by the prescribed authority was reversed.
13. The appellate authority, however, did not at all consider the circumstance and the material on record on which the prescribed authority had relied upon, namely, the illness and treatment for last seven years of the wife of the landlord at Delhi.
14. It is now well-settled that the appellate court while reversing the judgment of lower court must deal with the reasoning given by the court below. Whether landlord had bona fide and real intention to leave Delhi and to settle at Bulandshahr in the context of the circumstance that his wife was treated at Delhi, was a relevant consideration and on which the prescribed authority has placed reliance. Hence, it was incumbent upon the prescribed authority to deal with the said aspect of the matter and to record a finding after considering the relevant material with reference to the same. In absence of it, the finding recorded by the appellate court is vitiated which cannot be sustained.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Pradeep Kumar has placed reliance on a decision in the case of Gyan Chand (deceased) by Sheela Devi and Ors. L.Rs. v. Additional District Judge, Budaun and others, 1996 (2) ARC 479. Para 23 of the said reported judgment reads :
".......................The appellate authority did not record the reasons for reversal of the findings recorded by the prescribed authority. It has not been stated as to why the appellate authority did not agree with the findings recorded by the prescribed authority. Therefore. the impugned order passed by it, is contrary to the provisions of Sub-rule (7) of the Rule 34 of the Rules framed under the Act................"
In para 8 of the same reported judgment, the learned single Judge observed that :
"......................The appellate authority while confirming, varying or rescinding the order, will have to act judicially and in accordance with law. The appellate authority will have to record the reason for passing the said order particularly while passing an order of reversal."
In the aforesaid reported case, the learned single Judge also relied upon a decision in the case of Ram Niwas Pandey v. VIIIth Additional District Judge. Kanpur and others, 1982 (1) ARC 246, wherein the Court held:
".....................The appellate court was recording a finding of reversal as such it was to take Into consideration all the relevant facts and factors, which were taken Into consideration by the prescribed authority."
The learned single Judge again referred to another decision in the case of Mohd. Nanhey Mian v. IVth Additional District Judge, Aligarh, 1982 (2) ARC 527, and quoted :
"................. The lower appellate court appears to have made a mess of the entire things, it after citing certain cases, came to an abrupt conclusion that prima facie the need of the son of the landlord was established. When he was reversing the Judgment of the prescribed authority, it was incumbent upon him to meet the reasons recorded by the prescribed authority, while deciding the case."
16. In the present case, as noted above, the appellate authority did not categorically refer to the reasoning recorded by the prescribed authority and there is not even an iota of material to show that appellate authority, before recording contrary finding on the basis of same material, had proceeded to decide the case after applying its mind to the reasons given by the prescribed authority.
17. The landlord retired in the year 1988 and after four years in the year 1992, filed release application without pleading the cause of delay in filing release application or specifying the circumstances for not moving it promptly on or before 1988, though it was an important and relevant circumstance to find out whether the landlord had bona fide and genuine intention to settle at Bulandshahr.
18. The appellate court has not at all considered and applied its mind to the said aspect of the case.
19. In view of the above. Impugned judgment and order dated 10-12.2001 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by the Additional District Judge (Court No. 3). Bulandshahr in Rent Control Appeal No. 4 of 1995, Abdul Haq Khan v. Rajpal Singh alias Rajveer Singh and Ors., suffers from manifest error apparent on the face of record and cannot be sustained. Consequently, impugned judgment and order dated 10.12.2001 passed by Additional District Judge (Court No. 3), Bulandshahr in Rent Control Appeal No. 4 of 1995, Abdul Haq Khan v. Rajpal Singh alias Rajveer Singh and Ors., is quashed, and the case is remanded to the lower appellate court for deciding the matter afresh in accordance with law and keeping the above observations in mind. The parties shall have right to raise their grievance, if any. including the opportunity to meet the additional evidence, if no opportunity was afforded in the past to meet the same.
20. The appellate authority shall decide the rent control appeal, in pursuance of the present judgment as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
21. Considering the facts of the case, I direct that the rent control appeal in question shall be heard by the concerned District Judge himself.
22. The petition stands allowed subject to the observations and directions made above.
No order as to costs.