The appellate court must discuss all the issues and evidence led by the parties before recording its findings, and the judgment must address itself to all the issues of law and fact and decide it by giving reasons in support of the findings.

1. The present Civil 2nd Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 30th of October, 2012 passed by the learned District Judge, Udhampur, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

2. With a view to deal with the present controversy, it is necessary to give few facts in brief.

3. A suit for eviction came to be filed by the respondent-plaintiff against the defendant-appellant herein in regard to a shop situate at Gole Market, Dabbar, Udhampur, on the ground that the said shop was required reasonably and bonafidely for the use of the plaintiff's son, who wanted to set up his computer business in the shop in question as he was possessed of the requisite diploma in Computer Science.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, as many as five issues were framed including the issues regarding the reasonableness of the requirement of the plaintiff in regard to the shop in question, the comparative advantage and disadvantage of the parties in case of ejectment as also the issue with regard to the fact whether the requirement of the plaintiff could be met by partial eviction.

5. On the issue of reasonable and bona fide requirement of the plaintiff, the defendant- appellant herein brought on record evidence to show that the son of the plaintiff was running a hotel under the name and style of M/s. Hotel Sahil, which was partly situate on the first floor of the suit shop, which was being run by the son of the plaintiff and that there was no such bona fide requirement as was alleged by the plaintiff.

6. The trial court while dealing with the evidence on record in regard to this issue, came to a conclusion that simply because the son of the plaintiff was looking after the business of a hotel, did not disentitle the plaintiff's son from stalling a new venture independently. It was held that the plaintiff's son was not expected to sit idle till such time the suit shop was vacated and in those circumstances, decided the issue in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant-appellant herein.

7. While deciding issue No. 2, on the question of comparative advantage and disadvantage to the parties in case of ejectment, in terms of explanation to the proviso of Section 11(h) of the Jammu and Kashmir, Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966, (hereinafter called the Act of 1966), the trial court decided the same in favour of the plaintiff-respondent herein by inter alia holding that the defendant-appellant herein was in possession of the suit shop since 1977, for more than three decades, and further that it had not been proved by the defendants that the son of the plaintiff was earning a handsome income from the hotel business.

8. On a question of fact, thus, the trial court on a comparison of the relative advantage and disadvantage decided the issue No. 2 in favour of the plaintiff. Similarly issue No. 3 as regards whether the need of the plaintiff could be met by partial eviction was also decided in favour of the plaintiff.

9. A Civil 1st Appeal was filed against the aforementioned judgment and decree dated 31.3.2011, which came to be decided by the learned District Judge, Udhampur, by judgment and decree impugned dated 30.10.2012, dismissing the said appeal, which is challenged in the present Civil 2nd Appeal.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant, challenged the judgment and decree impugned dated 30.10.2012, on the following grounds:

(a) That the courts below had failed to appreciate the evidence on record while deciding the issue of reasonable requirement of the landlord in terms of Section 11(h) of the Act of 1966.

(b) That the issue No. 1 could not have been decided in favour of the plaintiff-respondent herein when there was enough evidence on record to show that the plaintiff's son was running the business of a hotel in a three storied building over the shop in question, thus, belying the ground of reasonable requirement in terms of Section 11(h) of the Act (supra).

(c) That the issue regarding partial eviction