M.L. Bhatt, J. - (1.) THE respondent was served but he did not appear. The case was fixed for yesterday and it was ordered to be taken up today in the hope that the respondent may appear. Today also nobody appears for the respondent. The petitioner is landlord. His appeal was allowed by the IV Additional District Judge, Meerut. The petitioner is aggrieved against the remand of the case to the prescribed authority for deciding the matter afresh in the light of the observations made by the appellate Court. The appellate court has taken into consideration the necessity of the landlord for a member of her family, munch, Pradeep Bagla and has observed that the landlord could get the shop evicted for the need of the said Pradeep Bagla, who was desirous of doing the business because he was not brilliant at studies. The prescribed authority had not taken this fact into consideration. He had simply said that Pradeep Bagla was pursuing his studies meaning thereby Pradeep Bagla had no need for the shop. This finding was not approved by the appellate court. The appellate court has held that the prescribed authority has not discussed the facts relating to Pradeep Bagla properly. If Pradeep Bagla's requirement was considered the prescribed authority had to discuss the comparative hardship of the parties while evicting the respondent from the shop or by refusing to evict him therefrom, as the case may be because the requirement of law is that comparative hardship was to be compared while allowing or refusing the ejectment.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner was heard. He submitted that the entire record of the case was summoned and the appellate court should have itself decided the matter and not remanded the case back to the trial court. By remanding the case back to the trial court a fresh lease of life was given to the litigation because the parties would again file appeal and the proceedings will be protracted for indefinite period. On the basis of the material on record the appellate court should have given a finding about the requirement of Pradeep Bagla and about the comparative hardship of the parties also. In my opinion, the first appellate court should not have remanded the case back to the trial court (Prescribed authority) to decide it afresh. No evidence was required to be brought on record. The case was to be decided on the basis of the evidence on record. Therefore, the first appellate court, as the first court of law and fact could decide the case itself. The remanding of the case to the prescribed authority would only give a fresh lease of life to the litigation. Therefore, in the interest of justice it is necessary that the first appellate court itself should decide the requirement of Pradeep Bagla as also the comparative hardship. Allowing this writ petition I set aside the order of remand and direct the first appellate court i.e. IV Addl. District Judge, Meerut, to decide the bona fide requirement of Pradeep Bagla, if any, and the comparative hardship of the parties itself after hearing the parties. The first appellate court will decide the matter in accordance with law by a reasoned order. There will be no order as to costs because the respondent No. 3 has not appeared in this Court. The office will communicate this order to the IV Additional District Judge immediately and the petitioner shall also cause his presence before the IV Additional District Judge, Meerut by 15th of May, 1991. The IV Additional District Judge, shall summon the respondent No. 3 and thereafter decide the matter.;