Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:18783 Court No. - 4 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1318 of 2025 Petitioner :- Yogendra Singh And Another Respondent :- Smt. Manju Yadav And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Sengar,Narayan Dutt Shukla,Prakash Chandra Dwivedi,Raunak Gupta,Rituvendra Singh Nagvanshi,Sr. Advocate Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Atul Dayal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ajay Sengar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.C. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rituvendra Singh, learned counsel for the caveater. 2. Petitioner is a tenant in the premises in question and is aggrieved by the order passed by the appellate authority rejecting the appeal by affirming the order passed by the prescribed authority but without holding any discussion upon the grounds raised. 3. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the entire finding returned upon the point of bonafide need and comparative hardships as have been dealt with by the prescribed authority has been reproduced by the appellate authority till the stage he records the final verdict rejecting the appeal. 4. Per contra, it is submitted by learned Advocate appearing for the respondent that the judgment of affirmance need not be elaborate one and if the higher court of appeal is agreeing with the view taken by the court below and finds itself in agreement with the findings returned, it may just consider those findings and pass final orders. He sought to defend the order for the reasons assigned therein. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, I find the argument advanced by Sri Dayal, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner to the effect that the court of appeal has not addressed the grounds taken in appeal and has simply reproduced the findings of prescribed authority to reject the appeal on merit. I have carefully gone through the findings returned by the prescribed authority upon point nos.1 and 2 and I find that those findings have come to be reproduced by the court of appeal verbatim except the last part of the order where it holds appeal to be devoid of merits. I tried to find out by minutely examining the order as to anywhere the Judge deciding the appeal has observed that findings arrived by the prescribed authority deserved to be affirmed for certain reasons and whether grounds raised in appeal stand devoid of merits for certain reasons, but I find there to be no such observation as as such in the order of the appellate authority. The appellate authority has taken the findings of the prescribed authority to be as if its own independent finding. This is liable to be termed as 'gross impropriety' committed by the Judge sitting in appeal. 6. Even in a case where the appellate authority finds itself to be in agreement with the findings returned by the court of first instance, it is always required to deal with those findings by an independent application of mind referring to grounds of challenge to come to conclude that the judgment appealed against does not suffer from any vice of perversity. This aspect is absolutely lacking in present judgment passed by the appellate authority impugned here in this petition. A presiding judge is always to keep in mind that the judgement is not for his satisfaction but the judgment is for adjudicating a lis meeting the grounds that have been raised questioning the order of court of first instance. It is thus mandatory obligation cast upon the court of appeal to deal with the grounds raised in appeal independently of the findings returned by the court of first instance. 7. In the circumstances therefore, I consider it appropriate to remit the matter to the court of appeal to decide appeal afresh and this time dealing with the arguments raised in appeal and recording its own independent findings of fact keeping in mind that the appeal is a continuation of suit. 8. At this stage, Sri R.C. Singh, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent submits that if court remands the matter, it should expedite its hearing. This prayer I find to be the genuine one and accordingly while I am setting aside the order passed by the court of appeal dated 13.12.2024 in Rent Appeal No.6 of 2022, I hereby direct that the court of appeal would decide the matter after hearing both the parties afresh in the light of the observations made hereinabove within a maximum period of two months of production of certified copy of this order. 9. In the circumstances, the judgment dated 13.12.2024 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Jalaun at Orai in Rent Appeal No.6 of 2022 is hereby set aside. 10. The appeal is restored to its original number to be decided afresh. Parties are directed to appear before the appellate authority on or before 24.02.2025. It is further provided that the interim protection, if any, was operating during pendency of the appeal, shall continue till the final disposal of appeal. 11. This petition succeeds and is allowed as above. Order Date :- 10.2.2025 Deepika Digitally signed by :- DEEPIKA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad