- (1.) S. R. Singh, J. Heard Shri A. K. Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Pankaj Naqvi, learned counsel representing 2nd respondent Mohd. Akil, Respondent Nos. 3,4,5 and 6 areproforma respondents and since no counter-af fidavit is proposed to be filed, I proceed to dispose of the writ petition at the admis sion stage itself with the consent of the parties.
(2.) ADMITTEDLY, the release applica tion filed by the respondent landlord under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction), 1972, came to be dismissed by the Prescribed Authority by a reasoned order. The appeal preferred against the judgment and order of the Prescribed Authority has been allowed by the Appel late Authority by the order impugned herein. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while reversing the finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority on various issues involved in the case, the Appellate Authority failed to advert itself to the reasons given by the Prescribed Authority in support of its conclusion ar rived at in favour of the petitioner-defen dant. The failure to do so, it is submitted by the learned counsel vitiates the decision in as much as it is an error in the decision making process itself. Shri Pankaj Naqvi representing respondent landlord has very fairly conceded the legal proposition that the Appellate Authority while revers ing the order passed by the Prescribed Authority must advert itself to the reasons given by the Prescribed Authority and record reasons for reversing the finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority. It has been held by this Court in Heera Lal Agarwal and another v. II Additional District Judge, Farrukhabad and others, 2000 (2) ARC 703, that the Appel late Court may confirm vary or rescind the order or remand the case to the Prescribed Authority for rehearing but the judgment of the Appellate Court must contain reasons for reversion of the finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority. This necessarily implies that the Appellate Authority has to traverse upon the reasons given by the Prescribed Authority and point out the defect therein if it wants to reverse the find ing recorded by the Prescribed Authority. In my opinion, the order passed by the Appel late Authority can not be sustained. The writ petition deserves to be allowed on this ground alone. Accordingly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The appellate order im pugned herein is quashed and the matter is remitted to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal afresh within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. It is made clear that the appeal shall be decided on the basis of the material on record and the parties shall not be allowed to give any additional evidence. Petition allowed. .;