Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:91349 Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7567 of 2025 Petitioner :- Om Prakash Maheshwari And 3 Others Respondent :- Smt Saroj Garg And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Madhav Jain Counsel for Respondent :- Rishikesh Tripathi Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rishikesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioners by means of present writ petition have assailed the judgment and order dated 18.04.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority/Additional District Judge (Court No.8), Agra in Rent Control Misc. Appeal No.241 of 2022 and judgment and order dated 26.08.2022 passed by Prescribed Authority No.3/Civil Judge (Junior Division) Agra in P.A. Case No.34 of 2016 renumbered as Civil Suit No.121 of 2020. 3. Challenging the impugned order dated 18.04.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority/Additional District Judge (Court No.8), Agra in Rent Control Misc. Appeal No.241 of 2022, learned Senior Counsel has contended that the order passed by the Appellate Authority is perverse and against the record. He has submitted that Prescribed Authority while dealing with the issue of bona-fide need of landlord has rejected the bona-fide need of landlord with regard to the son of the landlord Sanket Garg and had proceeded to hold that the suit property is bonafidely required by the landlord and his wife for their personal business. 4. It is contended that against the said order the petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 22 challenging specifically that the finding of the Prescribed Authority with regard to the bona fide need of the landlord and his wife is perverse and against the record but the Appellate Authority failed to record any finding with regard to the bona fide need of the landlord and his wife. Thus, it is contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. 5. Sri Rishikesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents do not propose to file any counter affidavit and matter may be disposed off at this stage. 6. Sri Rishikesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents while rebutting the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the petitioners has taken the court through the entire judgment of the Appellate Authority but could not point out from the impugned order that the Appellate Authority has returned any finding on the bona-fide need of the landlord and his wife, and accordingly he submits that the matter may be remanded to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal afresh strictly in accordance with law. 7. In view of the aforesaid submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the judgment and order dated 18.04.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority/Additional District Judge (Court No.8), Agra in Rent Control Misc. Appeal No.241 of 2022 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal afresh strictly in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. 8. In case if any adjournment is inevitable, the authority concerned may grant the same by imposing heavy cost which may not be less than Rs.5,000/-. 9. The writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 28.5.2025 Mohit Digitally signed by :- MOHIT KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad