The appellate court must provide detailed reasoning for its decisions, reflecting a conscious application of mind to all issues, while the revisional jurisdiction does not allow for a re-hearing of facts.

JUDGMENT :

Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

Petitioner-tenant has filed this Civil Revision under Section 24(5) of Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rent Act’) against the judgment dated 28.8.2021, passed by the Appellate Authority-II, Shimla H.P., in Rent Appeal No.23-S/13(B) of 2018, titled as Shan Mohammad vs. Puran Chand Dogra, whereby order dated 6.7.2018, passed by the Rent Controller (2), Shimla, H.P., in Rent Petition No.33-2 of 2015/2013, titled as Puran Chand vs. Shan Mohammad, has been affirmed.

2. For convenience petitioner and respondents shall be referred hereinafter according to their status in the Rent Petition, i.e. Tenant and Landlords respectively.

3. Apart from hearing, I have also gone through record.

4. Learned counsel for tenant has submitted that there was suppression of facts at the instance of Landlord, and for filing of earlier Rent Petition, which was dismissed, he was not entitled to maintain fresh Rent Petition being barred by res-judicata, and further that under Section 14(3)(iv) of Rent Act, there is no provision for evicting the tenant for acquisition of other accommodation by Tenant and therefore, plea taken by Landlord, to evict the Tenant that he was having another accommodation with 4-5 rooms available for his own use and 2-3 rooms rented out to tenants is not permissible to evict the tenant and further that there is also concealment with respect to availability of accommodation with Landlord for his own use, which is sufficient for his family and therefore also, the petition was liable to be dismissed.

5. It has been contended on behalf of Tenant that there is no evidence that Landlord or his family members are residing in Shimla and they are having sufficient funds and therefore, eviction order passed against the Tenant was not sustainable.

6. It has been contended that original tenant was Mohammad Islam, who was father of present Tenant and after death of Mohammad Islam, his legal heirs have succeeded his tenancy rights but they have not been arrayed as party and therefore, petition was liable to be dismissed.

7. It has also been contended that Landlord was in occupation of sufficient accommodation about 13 living rooms, 4 kitchens and 6 toilets, which was sufficient for his use and occupation. Further that Landlord casually visits Shimla and his one son is residing at Lucknow and another is at native village Gumma and therefore, the claim of the Landlord on account of bonafide requirement to evict the Tenant, is not sustainable.

8. It has been argued by learned counsel for Tenant that Appellate Authority has failed to exercise its jurisdiction and has upheld the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller without touching any point or fact despite that Appellate Authority was having jurisdiction and was supposed to return its findings after discussing the evidence on its merit because an appeal was in continuation of original proceedings. Further that Appellate Authority has not only right but duty and obligation to decide the appeal by taking into consideration entire pleadings, facts and evidence available on record and it has been contended that on this count also, Revision Petition deserves to be allowed.

9. To substantiate the plea taken by Tenant, reliance has been placed on judgment of the Supreme Court, titled as Manjula and others vs. Shyamsunder and others reported in (2022)3 SCC 90 by referring its para 8, which reads as under:-

“8. Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) provides for filing of an appeal from the decree passed by a court of original jurisdiction. Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC provides the guidelines to the appellate court for deciding the appeal. This rule mandates that the judgment of the appellate court shall state

(a) points for determination;

(b) the decision thereon;

(c) the reasons for the decision; and

(d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled.

Thus,