The defendants-petitioners by this Revision application have impugned the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Jorhat dismissing the “title Appeal No. 2 of 1984 of the petitioners and affirming the judgment and decree in Title Suit No. 43 of 1978 passed by the Assistant District Judge, Jorhat. 2. The plaintiff-opposite party, is the owner of the suit premises situated at Jorhat town. The petitioners are monthly tenants in respect of the suit premises since 1969 at a monthly rent of Rs. 501.00. The plaintiff filed the suit fur ejectment of the defendants on the ground of their becoming defaulter in payment of rent and for bonafide requirement for own use and occupation of the premises. Notice of the ejectment terminating the tenancy by the end of November, 1977 was issued prior to institution of the suit. 3- The defendants contested the suit by filing written statements. They claimed occupation of the premises as tenants since 1947 and that the root had been increased in stages. It was also stated that the plaintiff used to collect rent from them from time to time and there was no fixed date for payment of rent. They denied the allegation of default in payment of rent by stating that the plaintiff refused to accept rent on tender making same excuses. The ground of bonafide requirements of the plaintiff was also denied. 4. The trial Court framed 5 issues for decision of the suit. Both the parties adduced evidence by examining witnesses and filing documents. 5. All the 5 issues had been decided by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. Thereupon, the defendants preferred tfee appeal before the District Judge, Jorhat. The appellate Court picked Up issue Nos. 2 and 3 for scrutiny as to the alleged error in the findings therein, canvassed by the counsel for the appellants, holding that the decree for ejectment has based on the findings, that the defendants were defaulters and that the suit premises were required bonafide by the plaintiff for his own use and occupation. Perusing the judgment of the appellate Court, it is found that the Court endorsed the findings of the trial Court on these two issues without discussing and appreciating the evidence on facts. Learned counsel Mr. Perusing the judgment of the appellate Court, it is found that the Court endorsed the findings of the trial Court on these two issues without discussing and appreciating the evidence on facts. Learned counsel Mr. S. S Sarma on behalf of the petitioners submits that the appellate Court committed error in law to non-discussing and non-appreciating the evidence on facts and that mere endorsement with the findings of the trial Court on the prime issues was against the established principle of law in deciding the appeal by the final Court on facts. 6. It was held in Ambor AH vs. Ntchar AH reported in AIR 1950 Assam 79 (Division Bench) that the judgment of an appellate Court must be self-contained, so self-contained that findings of fact can be sustained upon a bare perusal of it. It should produce the material evidence and also state the reasons for holding the facts proved or not proved. This is what scarcely a compliance with the provision of Order XLI Rule 31 of C.P.C. Again it was held in the case of Fakar AU vs. Supermtentiant of Police and Registration Officer, Goalpara amd others reported in AIR 1971 Assam and Nagaland 165 that the first appellate Court, being final Court of facts, it is incumbent on it to consider all the evidence adduced by the parties in the case. Non-consideration of the evidence on record amounts to an illegality and vitiates the judgment. In view of the legal principle set out in the aforesaid decisions, there exists force in the submission of Mr. S S. Sarma. ; 7. Learned counsel Mr. B. K. Das on behalf of the opposite party submits that it is not necessary for the appellate Court to discuss the evidence in details for decisions on facts, when the Court on perusal of the judgment 6f trial Court, decides to affirm the findings of facts of the trial Court. In support of the submission, Mr. Das refers to the decisions reported in AIR 1966 SC 671 and AIR 1967 SC 1124 . In support of the submission, Mr. Das refers to the decisions reported in AIR 1966 SC 671 and AIR 1967 SC 1124 . The first case relates to grant of a lease in respect of mines in the year 1959 by the State of Bombay in favour of the appellant of that case, but during the year 1960 territories of the mines including the part in question fell in the State of Maharastra which Government by a notification reserved the said mines for the exploitation of minerals in the public sector. Thus, dispute arose with the lease holder and the State of Govern­ment of Maharastra. The lease was canceled by the Government of Maharastra and the revision thereof was also rejected by the Central Government. The Supreme Court held that ordinarily, the appellate or revisional tribunal should give its own reasons succinctly, but in a case of affirmness where the original tribunal gives adequate reasons, the appellate tribunal may dismiss the appeal or the revision, as the case may be agreeing with those reason. What is essential is that reasons shall be given by an appellate., or revisional tribunal expressly or by reference to those given by the original tribunal. The nature of the elaboration of the reasons necessarily depend on the facts of each case; and that no parti­cular form or the scale of the reasons can be prescribed and the extent and the nature of the reasons depend upon each case. 8. The second case was with regard to partition of properties; between different branches of joint Hindu family, governed by the Mitakshara law. There the appellate Court dismissed the appeal and a point raised before the Supreme Court that the appellate Court without appreciating the evidence and without giving its own reasons agreed with the view of the trial Court. There the appellate Court (High Court) did not enter upon a reappraisal of the evidence, but it generally approved the reasons adduced by the trial Court in support of its conclusion. The trial Court on consideration of the entire evidence and also the subsequent conduct of the parties came to the conclusion that there was no severance or partition of the nephew from his uncle and with that view the High Court agreed. The trial Court on consideration of the entire evidence and also the subsequent conduct of the parties came to the conclusion that there was no severance or partition of the nephew from his uncle and with that view the High Court agreed. The Supreme Court was unable to hold that the High Court did not consider the evidence, but held that it was not the duty of the appellate Court when it agrees with the view of the-trial Court on the evidence either to restate the effect of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial Court. Thisview was taken by the Supreme Court in a partition case of Hindu undivided family governed by the Mitakshara law in which the conducts of the parties subsequent to alleged severance was the basic evidence considered by the trial Court. 9. The two decisions of the Supreme Court referred by. Mr. B._ K. Das cannot be made applicable in the instant case with regard to a judgment of an appellate Court .deciding a case of ejectment of a tenant under the provision of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. The appellate Court was the final judge of facts of an ejectment case under this Act. It_ is, therefore, a duty of the, appellate Court deciding a case o this nature to reappraise the evidence on facts, relating to the grounds for, ejectment and to give its own finding with reason on each and every issue in, the suit, particularly the main issues as to the grounds. Discussion and appreciation of evidence on facts, with reasons of acceptance or rejection of the same, should be made by an appellate Court, in such a case, in the manner as required to be done by a trial Court, because the appellate Court is the final authority on facts, Judgment of appellate Court should be self contained, so that the finding of facts can de sustained upon a bare perusal of it. (Relied AIR 1950 Assam 79 and AIR 1971 Assam and Nagaland 165). The appellate Court failing to perform the same, the only recourse now is to remand the appeal for fresh hearing and disposal. It Will be the duty of the appellate Court also to examine, if required evidence are on record for effective decision of the main issues. (Relied AIR 1950 Assam 79 and AIR 1971 Assam and Nagaland 165). The appellate Court failing to perform the same, the only recourse now is to remand the appeal for fresh hearing and disposal. It Will be the duty of the appellate Court also to examine, if required evidence are on record for effective decision of the main issues. In case of its opinion as to the insufficiency of the same, the appellate Court may, on the application of any of the parties in the case, direct the trial Court to record evidence on specific point and to submit the same to the appellate Court for supplementing the evidence already on record. 10. This Revision is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree of tae appellate Court are set aside. The appeal is remanded for fresh hearing and disposal as early as practicable preferably within' 4 months in accordance with law and observations given above. 11. Parties to bear their own costs.